Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (GENERAL TRUSTEES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Consideration deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Secretary of State's Visit

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about his tour in the East African territories.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It is difficult to compress within the compass of a Parliamentary answer the impressions that I have formed after five weeks' intensive touring in East Africa.
I have placed in the Library a copy of the statements I made on leaving Nairobi, which cover much of the ground. It has been my purpose to reassure all races in East Africa of the enduring contribution that each will always have to make to the development of the territories.

Major Wall: Whilst congratulating my right hon. Friend on his obvious recovery from his recent operation and on the completion of a most strenuous tour in East Africa, may I ask him whether he would agree to comment on the report in today's Press to the effect that the African members of the Kenya Legislative Council rejected his suggested constitution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are Questions down actually on the announcement I made in Kenya, and I think, perhaps, I had better leave my comments till then.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached as a result of his official visit to Kenya regarding an increase in African representation in the Legislative Council and other constitutional changes.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussions in Kenya about possible changes in the constitution.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before leaving Nairobi on 8th November, I made a made a statement to all groups in the Legislative Council setting out the constitutional arrangements which in the view of Her Majesty's Government would be required to replace those of 1954 which by the resignation of the European and Asian Elected Ministers, had become unworkable. The text of this statement will be presented to Parliament this afternoon as a White Paper.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the great breakdown of the Lyttelton constitution and the opposition of the African representatives to the proposed new constitution, would it not be desirable that, instead of an improvised scheme which no one can hope will last ten years, there should now be a constitutional conference with representatives of all the groups with a view to finding a long-term solution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Lyttelton constitution did not, as the hon. Gentleman would suggest, break down until the European and Asian Ministers restored the initiative to the Secretary of State by their resignation. Throughout the whole period that I was in Kenya I was applying my mind to what, I hoped, would be the settlement that would emerge from negotiations between the different races, so that it was in no sense improvised when I announced it as the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I very much hope that, on reflection, those who do not at the moment feel happy about this


settlement will come to realise the very real advantages it will bring. Incidentally, the number of Africans in the Legislative Council will, under Her Majesty's Government's settlement, be more than doubled.

Mr. Robinson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, does he intend to impose this constitution in view of the news today about its reception by the African members? Secondly, can he say a little more about the Council of State, which is very vague in the statement he made? What is the purpose of the Council of State if the Colonial Office is going to retain ultimate control during the whole duration of this constitution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I announced a settlement which it fell to me to announce because of the freedom that had been restored to me by the resignation of the elected Ministers. As to the Council of State, I have not as yet worked out the full details of a body which is not designed in any way solely to protect the interests of minorities but to protect the interests of all races in Kenya. It would have powers of delay, revision and reference. It would also have certain powers in relation to any changes in the inter-communal seats, either in their total number or their method of election. In the view of many careful students of Kenya of all races, a body of this kind ought to have a reassuring effect on all who have made their home there and, not least, on the Africans themselves.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the European members resigned in order to promote greater understanding—that was the reason they gave? Therefore, is it not important that the Colonial Secretary should be able to carry all the races with him, including the Africans, in any new arrangements Her Majesty's Government initiate? So will he please not shut his mind to the prospect of a conference if the alternative is to start off in an atmosphere in which one major political group gives notice that it is not going to take part?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot regard the statement last night as being in any sense representative of African opinion as a

whole. It was open to the representatives of any or every race to put forward proposals to me while I was in Kenya, including proposals for a conference of that kind; and, naturally, I should have considered them on their merits. But, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, the settlement I have announced will commend itself to men of good will of all races, and I am content to wait to see how the pattern unfolds.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not want anything I say to lead the Colonial Secretary to think that his efforts were not praiseworthy. I think the right hon. Gentleman made a vigorous effort, although I disagree with some of the points contained in the proposals he put forward. But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital he should carry all the races with him, otherwise there will be no future for Kenya; and therefore, if his expectations of the future should not be borne out over the next few weeks, will he, before imposing this constitution, consider once again calling all the parties together?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman it is highly desirable that anyone in my office should carry all the races with him in any settlement arrived at. But Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a settlement, and I think that to have second thoughts about it now would be worse than having no settlement. I am convinced that, on reflection, this will carry the support of all races and of the people fully entitled to claim that they speak for the different communities.

Mr. Creech Jones: In order to elucidate the Government's plan, may I ask on what principle the Governor will nominate to the Legislative Council in order to preserve the local government majority? Secondly, why is it desirable to create a Council of Ministers if the proportion in the non-communal section of the Legislative Council is frozen? Thirdly, would it not ease the situation if Her Majesty's Government could make a declaration that their ultimate purpose is the establishment of a political democracy in Kenya, with safeguards for the minorities so that we do not shelter behind ambiguous words like "multiracial" and "partnership communities"?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's three questions. Regarding the principles which will guide the Governor in exercising his power of nomination, his discretion must be quite unfettered, but he will look at the country as a whole and arrive at the decisions that seem to him best. May I say that anyone visiting Kenya now would come away immensely impressed with the standing and authority of His Excellency in the minds of all people of all races in Kenya. There is no question here of creating a Council of Ministers; the Council was created in 1954 and it remains—

Mr. Creech Jones: I was referring to a Council of State.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A Council of State and not the Council of Ministers. The purpose of that was to meet the need which I found among all sections, not only Europeans and Asians, but Africans as well. The more experience I have of West Africa, the more I realise that in a purely African community there is the same desire for safeguards of this kind. It is to provide a feeling of security for the people of all races.
As to the ultimate purpose, I made clear what is the ultimate purpose in Kenya. For a long time there will have to be Colonial Office control. I do not foresee a date at this moment when it would be possible for the Colonial Office to relinquish control. The ultimate purpose would be to enable all who have made their homes in Kenya, of whatever race, to feel that they have an enduring rôle to play and that the standards they have set shall be maintained.

Major Wall: The Lyttelton constitution was introduced subject to a review for a period of years. Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has some similar suggestion about the new constitution.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the proposals I have made, the only aspect that was frozen for a period of ten years was the proportion between the different communities for the inter-communal seats. The Europeans had asked for five members—that would be five Europeans, two Africans, two Asians and one Arab. They were strictly entitled to that under the 1956 agreement. In my statement I changed that to four representatives of

each community, four Europeans, four Africans and four Asians, including one Arab. The Europeans and Africans wished to include one Arab. I regard that as a fair solution, and one which ought to survive for a period of ten years.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman talks of this as a settlement. I understand that it is his proposed settlement and not a definite settlement. Is that so? The right hon. Gentleman says that the African statement yesterday does not represent African opinion. How does the right hon. Gentleman hope to ascertain African opinion if he does not think that this represents it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's phraseology about whether this was a settlement or a proposed settlement, with the resignation of the European and Asian Ministers discretion was entirely restored to Her Majesty's Government, and the situation reverted to what it was before the Lyttelton constitution. Her Majesty's Government were free to say what should he the pattern for the future. I have therefore said on behalf of the Government what is the pattern. I regard that as a settlement—

Mr. Callaghan: That is an award, not a settlement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not propose to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about that. As to the method whereby one gauges what is the feeling of Africans in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is extremely difficult, but I am confident that if we give this a chance and the six uncompensated seats are elected in the near future and the four inter-communal African seats are elected—which means ten more Africans—there will be seen a real advantage to the African people which they will not be slow in making clear they recognise as a real gain.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mallalieu, Question No. 4.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 3 has not yet bean called.

Mr. Speaker: It is so long ago since I called Question No. 2 that I had forgotten. I hope we shall make better progress, because we are proceeding very slowly. Mr. Brockway, Question No. 3.

Multi-Racial Education

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what requests have been received for assistance with experiments in multi-racial education in Kenya, and what reply has been made.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Apart from the Royal Technical College, and the Hospital Hill primary school which receives the maximum grant-in-aid, financial help has not been requested for any such experiment in Kenya. The Kenya Government are, however, now considering a request for recognition of the introduction of pupils of other races into grant-aided African school.

Mrs. White: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask that he will do everything possible to assist experiments of this kind, which are of very great importance in any multiracial society?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am well aware of the importance of these experiments. We have to bear in mind the very different background and the problems of language in general; but I do not quarrel with what the hon. Lady has said.

Legislative Council (African Members)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations took place during his recent visit to Kenya with African members of the Legislative Council regarding the proposed constitutional changes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: During my two visits, I discussed the constitutional position separately with the African Elected Members' Organisation on five occasions. They also took part in four meetings which I held for all the Elected and Corporate Members, and I had two separate discussions with the African Members on other matters.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity of discussing the establishment of the Council of State, and did he also have the opportunity of considering the views of African Members on the proposed constitutional changes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I did not discuss the proposal that is made in its complete form with any of the elected members' organisations before I left. As I went along, I picked up ideas as to what

I felt would be a fair settlement and then announced it as the decision of the British Government.

African Farmers (Land)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to implement the recommendation of the Dow Commission that land in the Kenya Highlands should be opened up to African farming.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will have seen the views of the Kenya Government set out in Cmd. 9801 and the statement made by my hon. Friend during the debate on the Report on 31st May. The Royal Commission recommended the abandonment of land reservations in both European and African areas; the Kenya Government pointed out that it would be injudicious to try to move faster than public opinion, among all communities, allowed.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that it would help to reduce tension in Kenya if some decision could be taken in the near future on the Kenya Highlands? Is he further aware that a former Kenya Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Michael Blundell, recently said that there is unused land in the White Highlands that is open for development? Can he say whether the African farmers would have at last an opportunity of going in to develop that land?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. The Commission expressly linked reservations of African land and reservations of land for Europeans. The important thing is that the land should be properly farmed. I am glad to see indications of a greater disposition among all races to regard this as an agrarian and not a political problem.

African Patients (Fees)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many cases fees charged to out-patients and inpatients, respectively, in Government institutions in Kenya have been waived on grounds of hardship; and how many African patients have received treatment since the charges were introduced, compared with the corresponding period in the previous year.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I have asked the Governor for these details and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Civil Servants, Nairobi (Housing)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Government of Kenya to allocate houses for civil servants in Nairobi and other towns on a non-racial basis.

Mr. Profumo: I have asked the Governor for this information and will circulate a further reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Castle: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with Kenya moving towards a non-racial Civil Service, the allocation of houses for civil servants on racial grounds is quite undesirable? Will his Department use its pressure to speed up the implementation of the Governor's proposal that the whole of this question should be reconsidered so that African civil servants will be given housing compatible with their status?

Mr. Profumo: I think I ought to await the Governor's comments before going into the details which the hon. Lady has raised. I hope she will forgive me.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Political Situation

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the political situation in British Guiana following the election of representatives to the Legislative Council.

Mr. Profumo: In the two months since the elections, members of the majority party who were appointed to ministries have been working constitutionally with the Governor and official members of the Executive Council in the Government of the country.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very many hon. Members of the House welcome the co-operation now taking place in British Guiana and hope that it will be successful and prove a step forward to full self-government in that country?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Economic Council

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of members of the National Economic Council of Nigeria; how often it meets; and to what extent the Council has succeeded in co-ordinating economic policy and development programmes in the three regions of Nigeria.

Mr. Profumo: The Council, which has 19 members, has so far met twice a year, but may meet more frequently in future. It has gone some way towards co-ordinating the economic policies of the Nigerian Governments and is shortly to consider more specific machinery to this end.

Mr. Mallalieu: In view of the obvious desirability of co-ordinating the projects of the various regions in Nigeria, does not the hon. Gentleman think that this body ought to meet more frequently, and, in particular, should it not have some secretariat which would sift the various projects?

Mr. Profumo: We must leave it to the Council to decide how often to meet, but I have indicated that it may be meeting more frequently. Regarding a secretariat, the shortage of experienced staff is a real difficulty, but I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that this is a matter for the Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Nuclear Energy (Research Centre)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the setting up of a committee of inquiry into the possibilities of establishing a research centre on nuclear energy in West Africa.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is anxious that the Colonial Territories should share to the full the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear energy, and training courses on nuclear subjects are available here for qualified people from West Africa. But the West African Governments have not proposed the establishment of a research centre, and probably feel, as I do, that there are at present more urgent tasks for their available financial resources.

Mr. Mallalieu: Has not the attention of Her Majesty's Government been brought to the statement of Professor Huntley, of Ghana University College department of physics, that this nuclear centre could be established at a cost of only £20,000 and maintained for £4,000? Does he think that West Africa can really afford to stand aside, apart from any facilities which may be offered in this country, from this sort of development?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman reads my answer, he will see that it represents a balanced view of what my right hon. Friend feels should be the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Constitutional Development

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussion of constitutional development in Uganda.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 29th October, my hon. Friend undertook to have copies placed in the Library of a statement which I made in Uganda on 10th October. I have nothing to add to that statement, in which I said:
The view of Her Majesty's Government is that it is wise to proceed towards self-government within the Commonwealth by carefully considered steps, each step being consolidated and fully understood before the next is taken. When direct elections on a Common Roll are introduced in 1961, this will be a further positive and important step forward towards self-government.

Mrs. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there is a considerable divergence of opinion in the Uganda Legislative Council on the kind of election which should take place in 1961? In view of that, what proposals has the right hon. Gentleman for obtaining a proper exchange of ideas in Uganda, with some kind of qualified advice to the people concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Apart from what I have said, I have made it clear that there will be no major changes in the constitution until 1961, after which there will be a review. I know that there were differences of opinion in the Legislative Council, but there is general support for the introduction of an election common

roll. Disagreement exists over the reservation of seats for non-Africans. I hope that discusssion will resolve this difficulty.

Buganda Government Prison, Mengo (Disturbances)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action was taken following the disturbances at the prison at Mengo in Buganda on 26th August.

Mr. Profumo: The remedial action taken was described in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 31st October, to which I have nothing further to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Integration and Local Employment

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with the Government of Malta concerning integration and local employment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The recent negotiations presided over by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State were mainly concerned with the constitutional arrangements for integration, on which fully worked out proposals are now ready for consideration by both Governments. The intention is that the detailed plan, when agreed, should be published as a White Paper. In this connection, I consider that we are approaching the stage when we can implement the undertaking I gave to my hon. Friend on 8th May. I expect, therefore, shortly to be asking the Governor to consult the Archbishop of Malta on the proposals in so far as they concern the Church.
On local employment, ways and means were discussed of encouraging industrial development and the future of the dockyard. An Industrial Advisory Committee under Lord Hives and with a distinguished membership has been set up and will start work shortly. The Maltese Delegation made representations about the future of the dockyard. No decision has yet been taken on that question.

Mr. Teeling: While being very grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he


will discuss this matter with the Archbishop, may I ask if it is not possible, in order to make the result more unanimous whenever it is announced, for him also to discuss it with the opposition groups in Malta, or get Mr. Mintoff to do it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As things are working out, I think these groups will have more chance to make their views clear than was originally the case. There will be a White Paper, and discussion on it will precede any legislation.

Tourists (Visas)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions the Imperial Government and the Maltese Government have reached with regard to the speeding up of the granting of visas for tourists from any part of the world to enter Malta.

Mr. Profumo: Visas are not required by American tourists visiting Malta for a stay of up to three months. The Malta Imperial Government propose to make a similar concession very shortly to the nationals of most Western European countries, from which the bulk of tourist traffic can be expected.

Mr. Teeling: Can my hon. Friend say when this is likely to happen? Cannot an immigration officer always turn people away? Furthermore, is my hon. Friend not aware that in Italy one can only get a visa to Malta from Rome, in France from Paris, and in Germany—it takes a month to get it—from Dusseldorf?

Mr. Profumo: I am well aware of these difficulties. The date will be 1st January, 1958. It will be wise to see how these new concessions work out. If snags occur, I think Her Majesty's Government will not be loth to take further steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Primary School Places

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many primary school places were available for African children in Tanganyika this session; and how many applications there were for places.

Mr. Profumo: Primary School places at present available for African children total 382,440. Nearly 130,000 places are available in Standard I this session, and of these nearly 21,000 are unfilled. There are no central records of the total number of applications for places.

Mr. MacPherson: Can the hon. Member give the House the reason why so many places remain unfilled? Is it because a money payment is required which parents are not in a position to make?

Mr. Profumo: There is no indication of that whatsoever. I think the answer is that in some areas where there were formerly no schools, schools have been built large enough to allow for increase in the years to come, and therefore there are more places unfilled at present. It is due to wise planning. Some responsibility must rest on those parents who are still reluctant to send their children to school.

Resident Magistrates

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what qualifications are required for appointment as resident magistrate in Tanganyika; how many resident magistrates there are at present; how many of these are Africans; and how many Africans are in process of acquiring the necessary qualifications.

Mr. Profumo: Candidates must normally be barristers or solicitors of three years standing. The establishment is 28 and there is one vacancy. No Africans have yet been appointed. At least two Africans from Tanganyika are at present reading law in this country.

Mr. MacPherson: In view of the fact that there are no Africans appointed and that the Trusteeship Council has made a recommendation in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman deal with this question of magistrates separately from the general question of the appointment to senior officials' posts as a group?

Mr. Profumo: I have tried to answer the Question on the Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put down a separate Question, I will try to deal with it and do my best to answer it. Africans are, on merit, appointed to these posts. Two Africans are already serving as district officers with magisterial powers.

Loan Funds (Grants)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the total sums paid out from the African Productivity Loan Fund and the Local Development Loan Fund, respectively, in Tanganyika during each of the last three years; and why only 26 loans were granted from these funds in the quarter April-June, 1957, as against 53 in the preceding quarter.

Mr. Profumo: Local Development Loan Fund payments were £13,453 in 1954; £10,061 in 1955; and £9,352 in 1956. African Productivity Loan Fund operations started in January, 1955, and payments were £35,215 in 1955 and £22,077 in 1956. The number of applications for loans has fallen off to some extent in recent months as a result of the increased use of normal commercial hire purchase, and partly also as a result of tightening up on credit issues in doubtful cases.

Mr. Hynd: Does the latter remark of the Under-Secretary imply that there has been difficulty in getting repayment of instalments? Has this drop in the last quarter any seasonal significance? Without asking him to go into every detail in question, will the hon. Gentleman consider whether he could give me some fuller statement than this in writing in order that we can study the matter more closely?

Mr. Profumo: Certainly, I will try to write to the hon. Gentleman and give him more details.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

United Kingdom Expenditure

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total net expenditure met from United Kingdom funds for aid of any kind to the Colonial Empire; and what is the cost of administration falling upon the United Kingdom.

Mr. Profumo: In 1956–57, the latest year for which figures of actual expenditure are available, the total net expenditure from United Kingdom Government funds was £47·3 million. In addition, public loans on the London Market raised by Colonial Governments totalled £9·75 million. The cost of administration cannot be isolated: it is covered by

total net expenditure of £1·4 million on the Colonial Office Vote.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my hon. Friend represent to the Minister that, having regard to the fact that £150 million is equal to 1s. on the Income Tax, the proposals made by the Labour Party to spend that money in the Colonies is extremely misleading and is probably utterly "phoney"?

Mr. Profumo: I think my hon. Friend is on to a very good point there.

Mr. Callaghan: Before the Under-Secretary of State commits himself to that comment, perhaps he would study the proposals in greater detail. If he does, he will find that it is the usual practice of this party, as opposed to the party now in Government, to keep its Election promises.

Mr. Profumo: I am not necessarily prepared to subscribe to the view that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but if this is regarded as an Election promise by the party opposite, heaven save our country if they ever get into power again and this expenditure has to be put into effect.

Inter-Racial Education

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of the Colonial and Trust Territories there are inter-racial primary schools; in which there are inter-racial secondary schools; and to what extent it is his policy to establish inter-racial education in these territories.

Mr. Profumo: There are primary and secondary schools open to children of all races in a majority of Colonial and Trust Territories; and it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage this arrangement wherever possible. Where, however, linguistic, religious or cultural differences between groups within the population are so great that it is necessary to provide separate schools for the different groups, this provision continues to be made.

Mr. MacPherson: While one understands the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, will he make sure that this principle of inter-racial education is pursued vigorously? Is he


aware that in one or two cases the Government have lagged behind the proprietors of voluntary schools in this matter?

Mr. Profumo: I think I have indicated what is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the known danger of even light corporal punishment to those suffering from enlargement of the spleen, he will make compulsory in malarious districts medical examination of all prisoners or detainees before the administration of corporal punishment.

Mr. Profumo: So far as prisoners or detainees are concerned, none may receive corporal punishment for offences against discipline in any territory, whether malarious or otherwise, unless a medical examination has been made and the prisoner or detainee pronounced fit to receive this kind of punishment. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I will gladly make inquiries.

Mr. Hastings: While thanking the Minister for this wise and humanitarian decision, may I ask him to watch the matter carefully, because in malarious districts a large number of the population are suffering from malaria, with enlarged spleens, and unless a careful examination is made, this may be overlooked and corporal punishment may have dire results?

Mr. Profumo: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member has made, and I would like to put his mind at rest by saying that I have been unable to find any case in the records of my Department of anyone suffering severe internal injury of the sort envisaged resulting from corporal punishment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Night Passes

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish the terms of the law requiring Africans in Northern Rhodesia to carry night passes; and if he will give the reasons why this law is not repealed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The relevant provisions are set out in the township regulations made under the Northern Rhodesia Townships Ordinance and the by-laws made under the Municipal Corporations Ordinance and the Mine Townships Ordinance; copies of all of these are in the Library of the House. As a result of a debate in the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council last July, the relevant regulations have been suspended from 1st November for a trial period of six months in the township areas for which Government is responsible, in seven of the other townships and in three of the municipalities.

Mr. Benn: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for the decision to suspend these passes, may I ask him if he will consider within a short period abolishing them altogether, since the indignity which they impose on Africans far outweights their dubious value for control purposes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very grateful for any bouquets, but the credit lies with the Northern Rhodesian Government, which took the initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Boundary Commission (Report)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Boundary Commission for Mauritius will be ready; and when a decision on it will be reached.

Mr. Profumo: The Chairman has informed me that the Commission will need a little more time before it can complete its report. He has undertaken to let my right hon. Friend have it as soon as possible.

Mr. Benn: Can the Minister give any indication when the Report is to be expected, because it is, of course, awaited?

Mr. Profumo: The Report has not yet been submitted, and I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how long it will be before it will be. I know that the Chairman is working with his colleagues as speedily as possible. It will be for my right hon. Friend to study the Report in great detail when it is submitted before he can pronounce upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Paramount Chiefs (Reinstatement)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why certain paramount chiefs in the Sierra Leone Protectorate have been reinstated after their removal on grounds of corruption following the Cox inquiry.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Four chiefs who had been suspended from office pending inquiry following the Cox Commission were reinstated after full consideration by the Sierra Leone Government of all the circumstances, including the need to restore settled local administration.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask the Secretary of State whether it is altogether a wise thing to restore the authority and prestige of paramount chiefs whose conduct has been questioned, and who, in relation to their own people, are unpopular? Further, will the paramount chiefs take their places in the Legislative Council, and, possibly, one or two of them serve on the Executive Council?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Three of the four chiefs were exonerated on a charge of corruption. I cannot accept the view that the opposition to them represents a majority. I think it is very dangerous in Africa and elsewhere to create a vacuum unless we are sure what we are to fill it with. These chiefs, once reappointed, of course, can function in the proper way.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Murders

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long Her Majesty's Government propose to retain the Homicide Act on the Statute Book, in view of the fact that crimes of murder have so substantially increased since it was passed; and
(2) if he will state the number of murders which have been committed in this country since 31st May last; and how this figure compares with the number committed during the similar period prior to 31st May.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

ment what has been the monthly rate of murders to the latest available date from 1st April, 1957; and what were the comparative figures for the year 1955.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increased number of murders, he will reintroduce the death penalty for all murders.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of murders committed since the abolition of the death penalty, and also the figures for an equal period immediately before the abolition.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of murders recorded as known to the police in England and Wales for each month since the beginning of 1950. It will be seen from this that the figures normally fluctuate considerably from month to month. The number of murders recorded as known to the police for each of the six months April to September this year were, respectively, 27, 21, 34, 15, 20 and 11, a total of 128, compared with a total of 82 for the corresponding period in 1955. It is too soon to assess the effect of the Homicide Act or to contemplate a further change in the law.

Sir T. Moore: Does not this increase clearly show that the death penalty was a deterrent? How many more murders must be committed before the Government realise that in this particular case they made a grave mistake?

Mr. Butler: The House passed the Homicide Act and I think it is far too soon to contemplate a change in the law. The position about numbers of murders is that they fluctuate. I am not underestimating the gravity of the figures I have given, which even in my oral Answer I tried to particularise to show the increase, but we must see whether this is a fluctuation before we start envisaging a change in the law.

Mrs. Jeger: Can the Home Secretary tell us if there were not, regrettably, even bigger figures before the Homicide Act was passed?

Mr. Butler: I should need notice of particular dates in order to be quite exact in giving that information.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As I think these figures do definitely show an increase as compared with 1955, before the Motion on this subject was discussed in this House, and as this increase no doubt partly arises from the partial abolition of the death penalty, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this House did well in refusing the demand for the complete abolition of the death penalty?

Mr. Butler: I do not want to enter into further controversy on this subject. The number of children murdered between the date of the Homicide Act coming into force and 30th September was 32, compared with 34 in the same period of 1955, so it will be seen that it is difficult for the house to gather the exact significance of these things from mere figures.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, as the law now stands, a murderer committed to jail for life today can come out in time to murder a child born today in twelve and a half years' time?

Mr. Butler: I think that all depends on circumstances. I do not underestimate the seriousness of the observations of my

NUMBER OF MURDERS RECORDED AS KNOWN TO THE POLICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES (INCLUDING CASES SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND NOT TO BE MURDERS)


—
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apl.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total


1950
…
12
17
17
12
11
19
15
21
12
5
8
16
165


1951
…
17
9
11
11
9
10
20
13
9
10
19
19
157


1952
…
10
10
19
19
13
20
18
13
11
14
17
16
180


1953
…
19
22
17
13
12
18
14
9
15
12
11
12
174


1954
…
9
12
19
15
20
13
3
7
22
14
19
13
166


1955
…
8
19
22
15
15
7
12
13
14
6
13
8
152


1956
…
10
13
17
12
16
15
15
11
13
24
14
19
179


1957
…
13
13
21*†
27
21
34
15
20
11
—
—
—
—


* Including 11 recorded as crimes known to the police prior to 21st March.


† In addition there was one case of manslaughter under S.4 of the Homide Act which would previously have been recorded as murder.

Passport Examinations (Cross-Channel Steamers)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for immigration officials to board cross-channel passenger ships at the continental port of embarkation and

hon. and gallant Friend, but it does really depend on circumstances.

Mr. S. Silverman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for an answer that one hopes will serve to put this matter into proper perspective—[Interruption.]—surely it will—will he confirm that, between the date when the House of Commons passed the Second Reading of the Death Penalty Abolition Bill and the date on which the Homicide Act became law, the death penalty was, in fact, in practice in suspension, and that the effect of the Homicide Act was not to abolish the death penalty but partly to restore it; and secondly, that the discriminations in the Homicide Act that the public find so very difficult to understand are the responsibility of the Government and not of the House of Commons, which had wished not to make any discriminations at all?

Mr. Butler: I cannot deny that there are discriminations in the Homicide Act, and anyone having to interpret it must realise that. As regards the alleged suspension of the death penalty, I can only say that the Secretary of State of the day—not only myself—was placed in a very difficult position and, for reasons which this House knows, there was what amounted to a virtual suspension for that time.

Following is the table:

to check passengers' passports during the journey.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I hope to be able to introduce this arrangement next season on the car-ferry service into Dover. The position in regard to the other cross-Channel services cannot conveniently be


set out within the compass of a Parliamentary Answer, and I am writing to my hon. Friend giving him full details. I may say, however, that on-passage examination of the passports of foreign travellers is already in operation on some of the main services.

Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a concession of this kind would save travellers a very great deal of time and would be much appreciated? Would he further agree that more difficulties are put in the way of foreign visitors trying to enter this country than almost any other country in Western Europe?

Mr. Butler: I hoped that I had helped my hon. Friend by making a concession on the Dover car-ferry service. I hope to follow that up later elsewhere.

Cruelty to Children (Penalties)

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the existing penalties for offences of cruelty to children are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The law in England and Wales on cruelty to children is one of the subjects that is being considered by the Committee, under Lord Ingleby's chairmanship, appointed by my predecessor. I should prefer not to make any comment in the meantime on the existing penalties.

Mr. Lagden: Will not the Secretary of State agree that public opinion is seriously concerned about this matter, especially as it would seem that the penalties already existing are not sufficiently invoked in all cases?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I am aware of that, but I think I had better not make any comment until we get this authoritative Committee's report.

Assaults on Women and Children

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of assault on children and women, respectively, have occurred in the last 12 months; whether this shows an increase or decrease on the previous 12 months; and what is the percentage of either increase or decrease.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that, as assaults are not classified for statistical purposes according to the age and sex of the victim, I cannot give my hon. Friend precisely the figures for which he asks. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the only relevant figures which are so classified, namely, the number of crimes known to the police in the categories of indecent assault on females and defilement of girls under 16.

Following are the figures:


INDECENT ASSAULTS ON FEMALES AND DEFILEMENT OF GIRLS UNDER 16


Offence
Number of crimes known to the police


1955
1956
Per cent. variation 1955–56





Per cent.


Indecent assaults on females.
7,619
8,141
+6·9


Defilement of girls under 13.
195
172
−11·8


Defilement of girls 13–16.
1,491
1,578
+5·8


Total
9,305
9,891
+6·3

Parliamentary Constituencies (Review)

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a date has yet been fixed by the Boundary Commission for the commencement of the General Review of Parliamentary Constituencies under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating amending legislation with regard to the alteration of the periods at which these general reviews take place?

Mr. Butler: I should like to have notice of that question.

Homosexuality and Prostitution (Report)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take regarding the Report of the Wolfenden Committee.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am unable to add at present to the answer which I gave on the 31st October to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly).

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of us on this side of the House, and people in the country, think he should reject the Wolfenden Committee Report in so far as it relates to homosexuality?

Mr. Butler: In my reply to the debate on the Address, I said that I thought we had much better obtain the reactions of public opinion and, if desirable, the opinion of this House before we made up our minds on these difficult subjects, but meanwhile I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I am under no doubt as to the anxiety felt on this subject in some quarters.

Mr. Younger: In view of the importance the right hon. Gentleman says he attaches to the opinions in this House, can he say whether he is prepared in the reasonably near future to provide time for a discussion? While appreciating that there are many differences of opinion on the matter, is it not a fact that public opinion has been aroused and that if the Report were pigeon-holed without any discussion in the House it would be very unfortunate?

Mr. Butler: There is no question of pigeon-holing the Report; otherwise I would not have mentioned it in my speech in the debate on the Address, when the subject was supposed to be confined to economics. I decided to extend it to cover vice. I did that on purpose, because I wanted to give an opportunity to the House to realise that if there were a wish for a debate I think we had better have talks through the usual channels.

Crimes of Violence (Flogging)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reintroduce flogging as a deterrent against crimes of violence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. I am not satisfied that flogging as a judicial penalty is an effective deterrent. The principal offences for which it could be inflicted on adults before its abolition in September, 1948, were robbery with violence, armed robbery, and robbery in company with

others. The number of these offences is still below the level of 1948, notwithstanding the general increase in crimes of violence.

Brigadier Clarke: Would not my right hon. Friend think that flogging would protect the very old and very young and prove a deterrent to these crimes?

Mr. Butler: I have studied the Report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment, which reported in 1938. It examined this matter very carefully and did not find that a judicial penalty appeared an effective deterrent. The figures I have given seem to indicate that. I do not wish to make any further observation on the broad aspects of corporal punishment.

Mr. Younger: Would the Home Secretary agree that, since the somewhat disturbing figures for crime of all categories cover virtually every type of indictable offence, it would be a good thing if his hon. and gallant Friend could understand that there is not a simple and crude correlation between changes in penalties and the incidence of offences?

Hackney Carriages (Working Party's Report)

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enact the reforms proposed to him by the Working Party on Hackney Carriages.

Mr. R. A. Butler: For the reasons indicated by my predecessor on 1st March, 1956, in his reply, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, to a Question by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), no early legislation on this subject is contemplated.

Dr. King: Is the Home Secretary aware that this Working Party reported to his predecessor in December, 1954, after devoting three or four years' very careful work to the preparation of a Report? As the recommendations made contain many which are agreeable to the whole of the taxicab industry and to hon. Members on both sides of the House, will he give serious consideration to carrying them out?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look at it in the light of the Parliamentary interest which I notice today, but I must refer


to my predecessor's reply of 1st March, 1956, which sets out the reason why he thought that the Report would not provide any basis on which legislation could be framed. I do not as yet see that I can alter that opinion.

Police

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the shortage of policemen in most of the forces of the country; what is the weekly wage of a constable, sergeant, inspector and superintendent; and what steps are being taken to improve the conditions as a step toward attracting more suitable men to our police forces.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Although most police forces have vacancies, only a small number are substantially short of men. The strength of forces generally has been steadily rising for many months and is higher than it has ever been. With permission, I will circulate the weekly pay rates in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Questions of pay and conditions of service are considered by the Police Council for Great Britain.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of wages in the force is a discouraging effect upon men who want to join? Will he hurry

—
Provincial
Metropolitan


Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum






£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Police Constable
…
…
…
9
7
10
12
13
0
9
7
10*
12
13
0*


Sergeant
…
…
…
13
6
5
14
9
5
13
6
5*
14
9
5*


Inspector
…
…
…
15
16
3
16
19
3
16
7
9
17
10
9


Chief Inspector
…
…
…
17
18
5
19
3
4
18
0
4
19
7
2


Superintendent, Class II
…
…
…
21
9
5
22
16
3
21
9
5
22
16
3


Superintendent, Class I
…
…
…
23
19
2
25
6
0
25
13
9
27
0
7


Chief Superintendent
…
…
…
26
1
4
27
8
3
30
17
3
32
19
5


*A London allowance of 7s. 8d. is also payable.


These figures are exclusive of allowances for rent, boots and uniform.

Migration Statistics

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making so that in future his Department will have a full record of the numbers and types of people migrating in and out of the United Kingdom.

the negotiations which are now taking place with the police force and give an undertaking that when an award is given he will not follow his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health and veto the decision?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I cannot review any such position without knowing exactly what has happened, and I do not wish to interfere in any way at this stage. I would remind the hon. Member that the strength of the force generally has been steadily rising, and that is a sign, I think, of adequate contentment, apart from the normal negotiations in the police force as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would not the Home Secretary agree that it will be most unsatisfactory if he finds himself in the position of the Minister of Health? Can he give us an assurance that the management or official side of the Council will act in accordance with the wishes of the Government on this occasion so that the same position does not arise?

Mr. Butler: I think it is unwise to prejudge any consideration of any wage claim before it is put before the Minister. While I will pay attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think that he ought to prejudge this case at this stage.

Following is the information:

Mr. R. A. Butler: At present there are admitted deficiencies in the available statistics of migration to and from the United Kingdom. The various Government Departments interested are making a special review of the information required for official purposes about migration and the machinery for obtaining it, and I am not in a position to make


any further statement in the matter at the moment.

Captain Pilkington: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation is very unsatisfactory? Does he think that he will be able to make a statement about it within, say, the next six months?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I could let my hon. and gallant Friend know when I am in a position to make a statement, in view of the information which I am collecting.

Animals for Experimental Purposes (Purchase)

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation making it compulsory for all laboratories and similar establishments purchasing live animals for experimental purposes to maintain adequate records concerning all their purchasing transactions.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. On the evidence available to me I am not satisfied that such legislation is necessary.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that they are insufficiently protected today against the theft of private pets, and that some improvement in this state of affairs would be welcomed?

Mr. Butler: I have been through the papers and I find some recent cases involving three persons and one dealer, but otherwise I can find no evidence that the stealing of animals for sale for experimental purposes is widespread. I would also remind the House that the National Health Service hospitals do not purchase animals. If my hon. Friend wishes to direct Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I hope that he will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN COTTON CROP (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Prime Minister of the Sudan about the disposal of the Sudan cotton crop.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on Tuesday.

Mr. Wilson: While recognising the difficulty presented by the high price which the Sudanese are asking, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will bear in mind that especially in that part of the world the failure to buy a staple crop creates a vacuum into which other countries are only too anxious to rush? There is always a danger that mischief will be created in the Middle East by other countries buying this crop for purely political purposes.

The Prime Minister: It is for that reason that we are having these close negotiations with the Prime Minister of the Sudan.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (STATEMENTS)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of his reply to the right hon. Member for Huyton, on 31st October, about a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, he will instruct Ministers, especially those having a responsibility for trade and industry, to desist from speculating in private conversations or otherwise on the desirability of particular changes in taxation.

The Prime Minister: No such instructions are called for.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the matters on which this Question was based have no relation to recent events and that it was put down very many weeks ago? Since the Chancellor on Tuesday said that the spreading of such a rumour as was emitted by the President of the Board of Trade would do a great deal of harm to commercial interests, would not the Prime Minister look at the matter again and at any rate encourage his Ministers to desist from speculating about future Budget changes?

The Prime Minister: In fact, there has been no speculation by Ministers about impending or probable changes in taxation. If my right hon. Friend was correctly reported, he said that he would


like to see a different system of taxation. There are a lot of things that we should like to see, but we may not live to see them.

Mr. Jay: If the Prime Minister feels unable to send general instructions in this sense, would it not be worth sending special instructions to the President of the Board of Trade?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the second barrel was any better than the first.

Mr. E. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is much wisdom in the saying that "People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones"?

An Hon. Member: That is a squib.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRONTIUM 90

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to that section of the report prepared by the Atomic Energy Authority and placed in the House of Commons Library showing that in 1956 the two dead children whose bones showed the highest radiostrontium activity contained 1·55 strontium units and 1·3 strontium units, but that already in 1957 a one-year old Cumberland child showed 2·3 strontium units and a six-months old Liverpool child 2·4 strontium units, or a quarter of what is considered the maximum permissible dose; and whether he will in this light reconsider his decision to proceed with further hydrogen bomb explosions at Christmas Island.

The Prime Minister: The Medical Research Council has recommended that the level of strontium 90 in the bones of the general population, with its proportion of young children, should not exceed 100 strontium units. The recent figures of 2·3 and 2·4 units which the hon. Member quotes are only a small fraction of this. They are the highest so far observed in this country and are well above the average level. The situation with regard to strontium 90 is being kept under close and continuous review. As regards the last part of the Question, I have said that there will be no further tests in the immediate future; as regards any further tests that may be necessary. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 31st October.

Mr. Allaun: While we are all glad that there are to be no further explosions immediately, does the Prime Minister realise how we and the whole world would rejoice if he announced a lapsing of them? Would not this lessen the danger of Germany, France and others joining the nuclear arms race?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but this Question is primarily one about science and strontium 90. I should like to point out that, although I know the hon. Member is a great authority, he has quoted figures which are very far from the mark. He has quoted as a quarter what amounts to something like a twentieth.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORIA CROSS (GRATUITIES)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Prime Minister if he will make the necessary provision of funds to extend the Victoria Cross gratuity, at present payable only to other ranks, to commissioned ranks also; and, as the present gratuity of £10 per annum inadequately expresses the nation's gratitude to those whose courage won the Victoria Cross, if he will substantially increase the amount.

The Prime Minister: Officers in case of need are eligible. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) on 21st May. It is not proposed to make any change at the present time.

Mr. Simmons: Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of removing the class distinction in this matter and opening the award to officers as well as to other ranks? Has his attention been drawn to the case of a major in my old regiment, the Worcestershires, who was wounded in Gallipoli and who at the age of 81 has now had to appeal for a loan of £100 to enable him and his 77-year-old wife to live? Is this not a disgraceful condition for a man whose valour won him the V.C. and who held commissioned rank in the British Army?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that that case is one which would be equally deserving of attention whether he was the holder of the V.C. or not. There are all sorts of ways in which help is made available to officers. As for the point of


the Question, there is no distinction, because officers are eligible for the award if they are in need. That is the rule. As for the Answer which I gave on 21st May, I should like to point out that the provision of the old normal annuity of £10 can now be increased to £75.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business of the House for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER and TUESDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Concluding stages of the National Insurance Bill; and Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolutions relating to Import Duties, which are already on the Order Paper.

THURSDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.

Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolutions relating to Import Duties, when the necessary Bill will be brought in.

FRIDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Milford Haven Conservancy Bill, if reported upon by the Examiners, and Committee and remaining stages of the Yarmouth Naval Hospital Transfer Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and others about the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

[That the Draft Order in Council, to signify Her Majesty's Assent to the Constitution Amendment Bill of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, a copy

of which was laid before this House on 31st October, in the last Session of Parliament, be not submitted to Her Majesty.]

May I put two requests to him? The first is that, in view of the extreme importance of this Measure, it should be the occasion for a full day's debate, instead of having the usual time for a debate. Secondly, may I put it to him that it will be for the convenience of the House if, instead of having the rather narrow debate that would ensue on the Constitution Amendment Bill, we were to debate the White Paper—which would give a wider ranging debate—and then take the Motion formally at the end of the day?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, we will take note of these requests from the hon. Gentleman, and consider them.

Commander Donaldson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his attention has been drawn to the marked increase in betting shops throughout Great Britain, and whether he intends to introduce legislation in relation to the betting laws?

Mr. Butler: I cannot say that that will be done next week. Indeed, no mention is made of this matter in the Gracious Speech, so it would be wrong to arouse in the hon. Member's breast an idea that we were to legislate on it.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, on 30th October, the Fifth Report of the Privileges Committee—which, I assume, deals with the complaint made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on 8th April—was laid on the Table If so, can he say when it will be printed, and available for Members?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am informed that this Report will be available for hon Members on Tuesday next, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Dugdale: May I ask the Leader of the House when there will be an opportunity for discussing the Motion standing in the names of 120 hon. Members of all political parties on the subject of the Nash Terraces, in Regent's Park?

[That this House would deplore the destruction of the Nash Terraces in Regents Park.]

If his answer is, as I expect, that it will be "not this week," may we have an assurance that there will be an opportunity to discuss it before any irrevocable decision is taken to destroy these very beautiful buildings?

Mr. Butler: I think I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and the House, about the destruction of these buildings. I believe that they are not so likely to be destroyed as public opinion imagines, but I would like to say that this is a matter for the Commissioners, who desire to issue a statement before too long—that is, as I said in a previous Answer, before Christmas. If any hon. Members would like to see me, in so far as I have a Ministerial capacity in reference to the Commissioners, I should like the opportunity to meet them and to hear what they have to say.
As regards debate, I would not like to prejudge that situation, but I feel sure that in saying that I am doing no violence to the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that the House will welcome the Lord Privy Seal's statement, in his capacity as Home Secretary. May I ask him to make clear that, in this matter, it is, in the last resort, a Ministerial decision, and not something in the hands of the Commissioners?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, it so happens that this is one of my rare functions as Lord Privy Seal, and not as Home Secretary. There is, of course, ultimate Ministerial responsibility—we passed legislation that set up the Commissioners. There is also a very important desire on the part of the Government—indeed, enshrined in the legislation—to give the Commissioners the maximum autonomy possible, but there will be no attempt by Ministers to avoid their responsibility in the matter.

Mr. W. Edwards: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is the intention of the Government to allow the House to debate the Wolfenden Committee's Report?

Mr. Butler: This was raised in a Question during Question Time, and it will, I think, have to be arranged through the usual channels. I did say, in my speech on the Address, that it would be wise to get public opinion and the opinion of the House on this matter.

Mr. Willey: Can the Lord Privy Seal say when the Government are likely to make available the Bill to improve conditions for disabled persons? There is considerable interest in that Bill.

Mr. Butler: I could not give a date at present, but I will make a note of the hon. Gentleman's request and send him a line on the subject.

Dr. King: In support of what has been said, will the Leader of the House hear in mind the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) for a general debate on disability pensions and welfare service work for disabled people?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will make a note of that.

BILLS PRESENTED

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND)

Bill to make provision with respect to the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. John Maclay; supported by the Lord Advocate, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Lord John Hope; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT

Bill to authorise the London County Council to carry out certain street improvements in the vicinity of Park Lane partly on lands comprised in Hyde Park and the Green Park and partly on other lands; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Watkinson; supported by Mr. Henry Brooke, Mr. Molson, and Mr. Nugent; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

BANK RATE INCREASE (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Prime Minister to move the Motion standing in his name, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I make this statement.
I have carefully studied the Amendment which is on the Order Paper—after "disclosure" to insert:
or as a consequence of the disclosure of the information regarding the other intended financial Measures"—
and the precedents relating thereto, and I have come to the conclusion that I ought not to call the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to move it. The wording of the Statute is very strict. A Motion of this kind must relate to a definite matter of urgent public importance, and the Motion is in accordance with this in relating to the alleged improper disclosure of the change in the Bank Rate.
No doubt, hon. Members will think, with me, that whether or not the Amendment were accepted would make little or no practical difference, but though the matter may seem of little practical importance it is, in my view, of great procedural importance. I have to look ahead to circumstances which can occur in the future, and to avoid creating a precedent which might, for those to whom the circumstances of our own time are not so familiar, defeat the purpose of the Statute, which is to enable a tribunal to inquire into a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: In view of the importance of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I should be grateful if you would allow me to put one or two points to you in connection with the Amendment, which you say you do not propose to call.
I should like to make it plain that the Opposition are not seeking to add in any way to the part of the proposed Motion which deals with the question whether information about the raising of the Bank Rate was improperly disclosed to any person. That is to say, we are not seeking to suggest that the tribunal should be

concerned with the question whether information about other Government policies was improperly disclosed. In other words, we accept the view of the Government that, so far as these other policies are concerned, it must be a matter for the Government and for Parliament to decide alone.
We have, however, one anxiety, and this is not a new idea which we have suddenly thought of but is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and I raised when we saw the Lord Chancellor, and to which I referred in the statement which was put out at the end of the correspondence we had had with the Prime Minister. Perhaps I could best put our anxiety by quoting the words of the statement to which I have just referred. We said:
Whether there was or was not any direct leak of information about Bank Rate itself, we know beyond any shadow of doubt that certain circles in the City as well as certain people in the Press were aware on Wednesday afternoon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to make a grave statement on Thursday morning which would 'put the screws on' and intensify the credit squeeze.
It seems to us highly questionable whether such advance information should have been made available to any outside person on Wednesday, the day before the announcement on Bank Rate.
Any worthwhile investigation should begin from the records of the firms concerned and involve disclosure of the nature and sources of information which led to the dealings.
What we had in mind was the possibility that although there had been no leak about the Bank Rate itself, nevertheless the other statements made might directly or indirectly have led to sales of gilt-edged and, therefore, to private gain being obtained as a result of information of this kind being given. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether hon. Member, are really suggesting that they are indifferent to private gains being made as a result of disclosures of this kind. I cannot really believe that if they thought for a moment they could be indifferent, because, although I would readily agree that a leakage about the Bank Rate, in accordance with the ordinary conventions, is a more serious matter, it is surely a serious enough matter if disclosure of these other intentions led to sales of gilt-edged the afternoon before—that is, on the Wednesday afternoon—and if, in consequence, private gain resulted. I would I regard that myself as very undesirable.


I would, therefore, think it essential that the tribunal should not exclude from its considerations that possibility.
The reason I put this to you, Mr. Speaker, is that, as I understand, it has been ruled in the past that no Amendments could be accepted where there was involved a new subject, where it was suggested that a new subject should he brought in. It is very important indeed that your Ruling should not, if I may say so, be understood on those lines this afternoon, because if that were the case it would appear to rule out altogether from the scope of the tribunal's work the consideration that I have mentioned. I would he much obliged, Mr. Speaker, if you would make it plain, as I hope you will be able to do, that that is not your intention.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I phrased what I had to say as well as I could so as to prevent any such misconception as he seems to think might arise. In my view, with my experience of these tribunals, the Motion which is on the Order Paper would enable the tribunal to inquire in the fullest way, I think, into all these things. I think that it may find it necessary to make the most searching inquiries into all these matters.
Therefore, although the practical difference between the Motion and the Motion as amended is, in my view, negligible, I think that it would be dangerous even to give the appearance of adding a new subject, as the right hon. Gentleman has phrased it, to the Motion. I think that it would make a bad precedent.

3.43 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, whether there is any justification for allegations that information about the raising of Bank Rate was improperly disclosed to any person, and whether if there was any such disclosure any use was made of such information for the purpose of private gain.
It may be convenient if I deal, first, with the terms of the Motion itself. It sets up a tribunal in accordance with the Act to discover whether certain allegations are justified or not. I hope that

hon. Members will take note of the words of the Motion:
whether there is any justification for allegations…
It works both ways, and it is right that it should work both ways.
Secondly, it covers the whole field of what has roughly been called the Bank Rate leakage incident, and I think that with your interpretation, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, even had the Amendment been in order, it would not have really done anything to widen the powers of the tribunal.
As I explained to the House yesterday, my reason for an apparent change of position was based upon imputations of the most damaging kind against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and against Mr. Oliver Poole. Once these were made on the Floor of the House of Commons in the form in which they were made, and by Front Bench Members, no other course seemed to me possible. These statements have been made, are on the record, and cannot now he retracted. They can only finally be repelled by investigation and proof. Nevertheless, having decided to set up a tribunal, it is clear that there never could have been any question of limiting it to the cases of these two gentlemen. It must obviously cover the whole field of allegations, imputations and innuendoes on the subject of the Bank Rate leak.
I ought perhaps to say that, following the passages in the House yesterday, after the terms of the Motion had been settled by my advisers it was sent to me for my approval. Due to other meetings which I had, it was not till fairly late in the evening that it was brought to me. I arranged for it to be shown to the Opposition, as I had undertaken, and I would like to add, in view of certain statements that have been widely made, that it now appears in the form in which I originally approved it, without amendment of any kind.
Now as to the procedure. If this Motion is accepted by this House and in another place, the tribunal will be set up in conformity with the Act of 1921 by my right hon. Friend in his capacity as Home Secretary. It will be presided over by one of Her Majesty's judges, who will have with him two eminent lawyers. The powers of the tribunal in


the matter of the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents will be the same as those of the High Court. The tribunal will have at its disposal the services of the Treasury Solicitor.
I was pressed yesterday afternoon on whether the tribunal would meet in public. The answer to that question—I am glad I did not give it "off-the-cuff," because it is quite complicated—is to be found in Section 2 of the Act. It provides that the tribunal—I had better quote the words—
shall not refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal it is in the public interest expedient so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to speak at any length upon the Motion, yet there are some matters to which I would like to refer. It is, naturally, difficult for those, especially outside this House, who are not intimately acquainted with our procedure or with the traditional method of handling matters of this kind to follow every turn of this whole story. As The Times wisely says this morning:
There is no reason at all why any Government should institute an inquiry simply because the Opposition make general allegations that a leak or other impropriety has occurred. It would be a most undesirable precedent to establish.
It goes on to say:
A judicial inquiry is not a thing to be begun lightly.
Apart from the heavy burden placed on those involved and the very considerable expenditure which must be incurred, it is also clear that the vaguer the accusations the longer and the more complicated become the researches that might he involved, and it is for this reason that it has always been considered that at least some prima facie evidence should be forthcoming. This has to be weighed, if it is submitted, by some preliminary procedure, and in the light of that a decision has to be taken. That is why there is a special responsibility on those who wish to invoke so grave a procedure as a formal inquiry.
A few days after the increase in Bank Rate had been announced, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asserted in a letter to my

hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that there were indications of a leakage of informtion about the increase of Bank Rate to 7 per cent. such as to call for investigation by an inquiry. No evidence or facts were cited in connection with this assertion, which was of a general character. However, full inquiries were made by the Treasury and consultations were held with the responsible authorities of the City.
As a result, I was satisfied—the Chancellor was away in Washington—that there was no reason to believe that there had been, in fact, any leakage of information regarding the intention to increase Bank Rate. I was assured that operations in the gilt-edged market at that time were not inconsistent either in their scale or in their nature with the known situation of the exchange.
The responsible people most closely concerned were consulted at this first stage. They were the Court of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the Stock Exchange, the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers and the Chairman of the Discount Market Association. All these persons were satisfied that there was no evidence that there had been any leakage of information about the intention to raise Bank Rate. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, therefore, informed the right hon. Gentleman, with my full authority, that there were no grounds for holding any inquiry. So the matter was left.
Later, on 4th October, the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to the Financial Secretary and delivered it at 6 o'clock on a Friday afternoon. The Financial Secretary, being an assiduous Member, was in his constituency, as might perhaps have been expected; but, by bad luck, or good luck, I was at No. 10 Downing Street and the letter was brought to me. Since it made a definite accusation in these words,
Prima facie evidence has been brought to my attention suggest that the leak emanated from a political source",
I published my reply within two hours. I felt that this was an accusation which must at once be investigated.
I see suggestions in some sections of the Press that this preliminary investigation to see whether there was a case for an inquiry ought to have been by a judge, not by the Lord Chancellor. I


prefer, in this, to follow the precedent which Lord Attlee followed when he was Prime Minister, that it should be made by the Lord Chancellor. But whether it was by a judge or the Lord Chancellor, of course, it was an informal inquiry; witnesses could not be put on oath in either case. After some delay, certainly not attributable to the Lord Chancellor, the story on which the right hon. Gentleman relied was made available.
The Lord Chancellor then reported to me. I do not suppose that anyone in this House would cast reflections upon either the qualifications or the integrity of the Lord Chancellor. He reported to me that there was nothing in it. This was after a most careful and searching inquiry into every aspect of the evidence produced and down every path to which that evidence might lead. I think that, in point of fact, the right hon. Gentleman does not now attach very much importance to these stories. They were, after all, mere tittle-tattle, conversations between a junior employee, 18 years' old, and a Government official in a railway train, and between two Government officials, apparently claiming foreknowledge. Both conversations occurred after the event. Mr. Speaker, to claim fore-knowledge of an event after it has happened is not an uncommon weakness of mankind.
On receipt of the Lord Chancellor's advice to me that there was no ground for inviting Parliament to set up a formal inquiry, I accordingly wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 22nd October conveying this information. So far, therefore, no evidence on which any general inquiry could be based had been forthcoming, and the evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman did attach some importance is now not, I think, regarded very seriously by him.
While I felt it right to determine the matter by the exercise of my own judgment, in accordance with precedent, at the point where everything was still in the realm of vague rumour or even prejudice, once an accusation is made which touches the honour of a member of the Government or of an individual outside a different situation arises. Parliamentary Privilege is a treasured right of the House of Commons, but we should not forget that it stems from the days of relation-

ships between the Executive and Parliament very different from those which now exist. Privilege was intended to be a buttress of liberty. It should not be used as a protection for defamation.
Although I was not in the House at the interchange of Questions on Tuesday, when I read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and particularly the form of certain supplementary questions from the Front Bench, I felt very concerned, for something was now touched on much deeper than any of the other considerations which had been in my mind before. As I expected, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer next morning very strongly pressed me to reverse my decision. A letter was sent to me by Mr. Oliver Poole which made it clear that he felt himself in really a quite impossible position if he could be slandered inside the House of Commons, where he had no redress, but nobody was prepared to libel him outside.
I thought it right to recall the whole history of these facts to the House. I much regret the circumstances which have led to placing this Motion upon the Order Paper, but I think that the House and the country will, on reflection, agree that the Government have acted in accordance with precedent, in accordance with propriety, and, in their final decision, in accordance with something which overrides both—the right of men, even in the highest places, who have been attacked by name, to defend their honour.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I welcome the decision of the Government to put this Motion on the Order Paper and, in the light of the earlier exchanges, we accept the terms of reference set out in the Motion. But I deeply deplore the manner and substance of the Prime Minister's speech in moving it. I should myself have thought that, once the decision had been taken to set up a judicial tribunal, it would have been far more appropriate, and certainly far more in keeping with the traditions of the House, if the matter had been treated as sub judice and the Prime Minister had carefully refrained from attempting to prejudge the issue.
Fortunately, I think we can assume that the persons appointed to the tribunal, will disregard entirely everything that has been said. I had not myself intended to refer to the brief history of this episode


because, in my opinion, it is far better to leave it as it is until the tribunal has reported, but in view of the statements made by the Prime Minister I am obliged to make some comment.
The Prime Minister protests that there was no prima facie evidence. He implies that the Opposition fabricated it. Could anything be more absurd? Every Member of the House knows that the newspapers were carrying the story of the Bank Rate leak immediately after the announcement. Before we ever approached the Government, there were headlines in the Press suggesting that £10 million worth of Government securities were sold the afternoon before the announcement concerning the Bank Rate. For my part, I should have thought that that fact alone would have warranted an independent inquiry, for we are not prepared to accept that inquiries conducted by the Government themselves, without, as far as we know, even the assistance of the police or any investigation officers, are adequate in circumstances of this kind.
Secondly, we also received information—indeed, there was a great deal of information going round—about different persons who were supposed to be associated with this. The Prime Minister has referred, in passing, to one of the matters to which we drew attention when we saw the Lord Chancellor. I do not propose to comment on that now. I presume that the persons concerned will now give evidence before the tribunal, and it is better that they should tell their own story rather than have it told for them by an interested party.
Finally, and eventually, it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw the Deputy-Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation. We have never had any explanation of why this gentleman should have been seen. It can hardly be a matter for surprise if eyebrows are raised and questions asked about matters of this kind.
In all the circumstances, no Opposition could have done their duty and refrained from pressing this matter. All that we did was to submit that there was adequate evidence for an inquiry with an independent judge or an independent person. The Prime Minister turned us down once, twice. Now, at last, he has been

obliged to take action. I very much regret that he did not take action at once. Had he done so, it would not have been necessary for anybody to mention the name of Mr. Poole here. The Prime Minister, however, must be aware that the name of Mr. Poole was being whispered a great deal outside. I dare say he will have observed an article in this morning's newspapers, written by a member of his own party, in which it appears that the Lord President of the Council referred openly before journalists to the fact that Mr. Poole had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer or was going to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer that afternoon.
All these things are known to us. In view of the Government's record, not only in this matter but in other similar matters, it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to come to the House and talk in those terms.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Which other matters?

Mr. Gaitskell: However—

Hon. Members: Which other matters?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would counsel the House to take this matter as calmly as it can.

Mr. Gaitskell: I agree with you. Mr. Speaker—

Mr. James Stuart: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is merely elaborating and increasing this smear campaign, will he say to what further matters he refers for which the Government were responsible?

Mr. Gaitskell: The indiscretions of the President of the Board of Trade, of course. We are all familiar with them.

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. Gaitskell: However, at last the Government have decided to set up this inquiry and I, for one, am very glad that at last they have done it. It is very necessary, when accusations of this kind are made, from whatever quarter they come, that they should be fully investigated. They were made, as I said earlier, initially in the newspapers on a very wide scale indeed. I can only hope that the tribunal will be set up as soon as possible and proceed to clear up the whole matter.

4.6 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The Prime Minister has, on this the second occasion, made reference to supplementary questions that were asked in the House on Tuesday of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has denounced them as being imputations against the honour both of Mr. Poole and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I was responsible for one of those supplementary questions. I made no imputations against the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I made no imputations against the honour of either of the gentlemen, but, of course, I made an imputation against the political discretion and wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: And of the Prime Minister.

Sir L. Plummer: And, of course, of the Prime Minister, too.
Quite clearly, this issue would not have come to this stage had the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom knew what was being said in the City of London and in the newspapers, and both of whom had been able to read the inferential paragraphs that have been appearing in the newspapers—of which they made no complaint—appreciated that the names of certain people in this country were being bruited about openly both in the City of London and in Fleet Street.
The Prime Minister bears the responsibility for this situation. When this matter was first raised with him he had an opportunity to disclose to the nation what he knew, which was that Mr. Oliver Poole had been seen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why did this have to be winkled out of the Government? Why did it have to be extracted in this way? It does not do to say that our remarks in our supplementaries should have been made outside.
What does the Prime Minister want to do? Does he want to rob us of our privilege? Does he want to rob this House of Commons and hon. Members of raising issues which they think are of fundamental importance? I remember that my friend the right hon. Toni Johnston raised points in the House of Commons, because he was privileged, that resulted in the judges' rules being altered

on material that he did not dare use outside. It does not do for wealthy Members on the other side of the House suddenly to want the protection of the courts in their own interests.
Mr. Oliver Poole was not the first man to have his reputation tarnished, or an attempt made to tarnish it, in the House of Commons. He was not the first man whose name was mentioned in this House, and he will not be the last. The responbility of both the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter is very great.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. He made reference yesterday to the fact that some sections of the Press were given information by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he realise the dangerous situation that this creates? Has he never heard of the "long wink", which is well known in the City—the "tip-off".
What right has the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call a selected few newspaper men together and to give them information, which they are not entitled to have, to their advantage and to the disadvantage of any other newspaper, and say, "I will tell you some of the things that we are doing. Of course, you must draw your own conclusions"? [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. Member know he said that?"] We all know the Press were told.
If the hon. Member will read the Prime Minister's statement he will see it was made quite clear that certain representatives of the Press were told that there were certain actions the Chancellor was going to take—limits on bank overdrafts, restriction of credit to public enterprises, and so on.
Why did he choose the papers he did choose? Is the judicial tribunal to have power to make an examination of that? Look at the result. The next morning, the morning of the day on which the increase in the Bank Rate was announced, the Daily Telegraph forecast an increase in the Bank Rate. The City Editor of the Daily Telegraph went so far in his column. I do not want to do him a disservice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why should I? He made it quite clear, Mr. Francis Whitmore, that he could forecast a policy which included even a higher Bank Rate. Was a representative of the Daily Telegraph there at the Treasury? If so, why? If Mr. Francis


Whitmore was given information, it was very dangerous to give him the information. He is obviously a man of impeccable honour. But is it right that he should be given information which he could use to his or somebody else's advantage?
When the trouble arose over my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), which was dealt with expeditiously by Lord Attlee, in staggering contrast to what has gone on now, the accusation was that a newspaperman had been given information to which he was not entitled. There was a great deal of fury at that.
Why was Mr. Whitmore or any representative of the Daily Telegraph entitled to this information? Why was the Financial Times able to forecast an increase in the Bank Rate? Was it prescience on its part? Or was its representative invited to the Treasury as well? Is it not significant that no other newspaper in London was able to forecast any of the things which these other newspapers did forecast? I put that to the Prime Minister.
The Government have really got to face this question. They are now beginning to believe that they have the prerogative to say what they like to whom they like, that they can choose a newspaper here and a newspaper there for their confidences. I hope that the judicial committee will inquire into this situation.
As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have sold this if he had not "boxed clever" on Tuesday, if he had had enough confidence in the importance of this House of Commons to have "come clean". I do not think that he is a dishonourable man. Of course he is not. If I had imputed that he was, you, Mr. Speaker, would have stopped me at once from making any imputation against his honour. His behaviour, however, has shown that he is completely unfitted for his post, that he is not a dishonourable gentleman but what the people in my constituency would call a "proper Charlie".

4.14 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am sure that the House will have noted with the greatest possible pleasure that the charges of yesterday now seem to be withdrawn. Instead of

hon. Members opposite talking about Mr. Oliver Poole with his vast financial interests, we are now told we are to concentrate on the indiscretions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I have not had the same experience of smear campaigns as some other hon. Members of this House. I have not had the experience of smear campaigns which have been known in the United States of America. I would remind hon. Members that a smear campaign in the United States of America led to the suicide of Mr. James Forrestal, the Secretary for the United States Navy.
I am not suggesting that the amateurish efforts of hon. Gentlemen on the other side can be compared in any way to the professional venom and vice that really well-trained executants in these matters can produce, but I am suggesting most seriously to hon. Members of this House that it is unbelievable that what, yesterday, was an imputation against the honour and probity of respectable, honest people connected with a banking firm—[An HON. MEMBER: "The old firm."] Hon. Members may enjoy their laugh, but let me tell hon. Members about the chairman of the firm whose name is taken so very lightly.
This gentleman is Lord Kindersley. Lord Kindersley is a man who is now 58. He jumped as a paratrooper in Normandy. He is a man who is one of the—I suppose—very few people in this country who really have given their lives, their work and everything in the interests of this country. It is fantastic to me to hear people whom I respect and like talking lightly and laughing at the honour and probity of people like Lord Kindersley.
I am sorry that it falls to me as a very humble back bencher to have to say here, as I do now, that it is scandalous that an attack upon the so-called indiscretions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a question as to whether he was indiscreet or not, should be used as a means to attack people who, by their lives and work, have done more to keep up the Commonwealth and this country than a very great many Members of this House.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not want to go into the question whether individuals have been


slandered or libelled. That is a matter for the tribunal now being set up. Nor do I wish for the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fate which has been forecast for him from the back benches behind him by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) I rise to ask what exactly we are being asked to do.
As I understood the Motion, the tribunal which is being set up was to investigate one absolutely definite narrow point: was the rise in Bank Rate improperly disclosed to anyone? If the answer to that is "No", the second half of the Motion, as I understand it, would fall to the ground. The second part of the Motion asks whether, if any such disclosure was made, was such information used for the purpose of private gain? Clearly, therefore, if no such disclosure was made the second part falls to the ground.
Since then we have been told that the proposed Amendment by the Labour Party, which has been ruled out of order, made no practical difference. But it would seem to me that had it been added to the Motion it would still have been a matter for inquiry by the tribunal as to whether any other information, apart from any question about the Bank Rate, was used for private gain. Furthermore, the Prime Minister said that the Motion covers the widest field.
I am merely asking a question. We know from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that various things were undoubtedly discussed with the trade union representatives, the employers' representatives, the nationalised industries, and with Mr. Poole. The Prime Minister, in his statement, said that some of these things
…must inevitably have wide repercussions on wages, profits and many other sections of the economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November; Vol. 577, c. 964.]
Therefore, if anyone was disposed to speculate, what was said might have been of the greatest use to him, because it was something which would have affected profits. That appears to arise from the Prime Minister's statement.
Is it the intention that this tribunal shall now inquire into the whole range of the subjects discussed—as well as the Bank Rate—and into all the transactions which may have taken place afterwards?

Is it for the tribunal to decide whether it was proper for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to talk to the people to whom he may or may not have spoken, and tell them what he did? Will the tribunal look into the question not only of gilt-edged transactions but into whether there were suspicious transactions in equities on the Stock Exchange before the official announcement of the Bank Rate and the other financial policies?
It seems to me that there is a great point as to whether it was wise or necessary for the Chancellor to see all these people. He does not see them before a Budget, and this was a matter almost as important as a Budget. It is admitted that the Chancellor would never dream of telling them about an increased Bank Rate, but other matters, apparently, were mentioned which, from the point of view of speculation, were almost as important. The only point of not mentioning Bank Rate changes before they are announced is to prevent people with advance information being able to speculate. That seems to me to apply equally to some other changes of financial policy. It seems to me that even though there may be many precedents, it is unwise to see these people and especially, as apparently happened, to see some of the Press and not others.
But are these matters for the tribunal to inquire into? I do not think that they are. I do not think that it is for a High Court judge to say whom it is proper or improper for the Chancellor to see, but I want to know whether we are asking a High Court judge to say that or not. I thought, from the Prime Minister's statement, that his impression is that we are, and that we are asking the tribunal to inquire not only into whether there were gilt-edged sales but into whether there were other transactions.
This seems to me a very wide matter and one for the House and the Government themselves to inquire into. I would not take it as a conclusive argument in its favour that the Labour Party or even a Liberal Government have done the same thing before. It is a question of great importance whether it is necessary to see these interests when financial policy affects everybody and not merely the T.U.C., the employers and representatives of the nationalised industries; but it is not necessarily a question for a judicial tribunal.
What exactly will the tribunal have before it? Will it have a wide remit to inquire into all sorts of things—into what the Chancellor said, whom he saw and what resulted on the Stock Exchange? These matters are matters for inquiry, but I do not feel that they are matters that should be inquired into by a tribunal.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I want to raise two matters and I hope to do so very shortly. Speaking with the greatest diffidence, I must say that I should have thought that the Prime Minister would have been very much better advised, having come to his decision, to have moved his Motion formally without adding anything to it and to leave the matter to the tribunal to determine on whatever evidence was tendered to it. To make the kind of speech that he did could not possibly assist the tribunal, and it is very difficult to see why he thought it necessary to make it.
My first point is a continuation of the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). With all respect, I am not at all sure that the tribunal will find the interpretation of the terms of reference quite so easy as would seem to follow from what has been said both by you, Mr. Speaker, and by others in the course of the debate.
The Amendment on the Order Paper sought to insert, after the word disclosure:
or as a consequence of the disclosure of the information regarding the other intended financial measures.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—and I entirely agree with him—accepted that it was for the Government themselves and not for any tribunal to decide what information the Chancellor was entitled to give and to whom he was entitled to give it and when. But the serious part of the Amendment is concerned not with whether the Chancellor was entitled to, or was indiscreet or otherwise in giving the information. The point of the Amendment is what use was thereafter made of the information which he was perfectly entitled to give if he chose to give it. That is what the Amendment says:

…as a consequence of the disclosure of the information regarding the other intended financial measures.
As I understood your explanation, Mr. Speaker, you said that that added nothing to the Motion. It is this point that I find difficult to understand, because the Motion says:
…and whether if there was any such disclosure any use was made of such information for the purpose of private gain.
What is "such" in the Motion "Such" quite clearly is,
…that is to say, whether there is any justification for allegations that information about the raising of Bank Rate was improperly disclosed to any person…
And such disclosure and such information is the disclosure, or alleged disclosure, of the matters about the Bank Rate and the information about the Bank Rate and not any other matter.
It seems to me, therefore, that if the Motion is passed as moved by the Prime Minister, the tribunal might very well come to the conclusion that it was not entitled to inquire into any of the matters that are dealt with in the Amendment, namely, the use made of the disclosure of information
…regarding the other intended financial measures"—
that is, other than the raising of the Bank Rate.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Nelson and Caine (Mr. S. Silverman) unfairly, but I am in a little difficulty. You have given a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that you would not call the Amendment and you gave reasons which we in the House fully appreciate. But am I not right in saying that, when you have given a Ruling that you will not call an Amendment, the normal procedure is that we do not go on in the course of the ensuing debate to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Amendment, and that if it is desired to raise another matter referring to your Ruling it should be done on a point of order rather than in the course of debate I suggest that the remarks of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne should be made on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I do not take his words in the sense in which the hon. and gallant


Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) takes them. I take it that what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is saying is really an argument against the Motion which is before the House. In pointing out what he alleges to be defects in its comprehensiveness, and so on, which he is quite entitled to do, the hon. Member is not attempting to move the Amendment which I disallowed. Nor is he disputing my Ruling on procedure. But I think that it is an argument, which can be used against the Motion before the House, that it is imperfect in the hon. Members' view, and I think that we ought to listen to that. I see nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Silverman: That is exactly what I was trying to say. Mr. Speaker, namely, that the Motion would be acceptable unanimously to the House of Commons if the interpretation which Mr. Speaker has put upon it is the interpretation which the tribunal would put upon it. But I am dealing with the wording of the Motion, because it seems to me not nearly so wide as it would have been if the interpretation of the words were as I said.
The point is that I think we all desire hat the tribunal, now that it is to be set up, shall be able to inquire into any question arising out of the disclosure of information. Mr. Speaker said that the Motion, in his opinion, was wide enough to do that and that the Amendment would make no practical difference. I am not quite sure that that is so, and I should like to hear further argument about it before I come to any conclusion on that point. I feel that the tribunal may very well take a much more restricted view of its terms of reference than the House has been led to believe.
The only other point that I want to make is this. The Prime Minister said that the privileges that hon. Members have ought not to be used as a cloak for defamation. If what he meant by that was that we should use our privileges with a great sense of responsibility, then, of course, we would all unanimously agree; but if it was meant in any way to limit the privilege of Members of Parliament to raise, with a due sense of responsibility, any matter; they think it fit to raise, irrespective of whether they would be entitled, without being attacked, to raise them outside, I think that this would be a

very serious limitation of the rights and functions of the House of Commons.
There are two institutions in this country to which the laws of our country have always granted absolute privilege. That absolute privilege is granted because it is in the interest of the public generally that it should be exercised freely. One is the Law Courts in which a man may say, as an advocate or in the witness box, anything, however treacherous, however malicious and however unjustified, because it is thought better that he should have that right to say whatever is in his mind than that it should be limited in any way.
The other is this House of Commons, because we would not be able, not any of us, to do our duties properly unless we felt perfectly free, without fear of attack of any kind, to raise in the House of Commons and with Ministers any matter that we thought it right to raise. That is the only contribution that I want to make now to these proceedings.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: While I appreciate very much what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has just been saying, I think that every hon. Member should bear in mind what the Prime Minister has told us, so that we do not dress up in too much cant our talk about the privileges of Parliament and do not abuse too widely and too much resent persons outside this House who have not the same protection.
I want to ask a little more about this tribunal and the powers that it will have. I ask the Home Secretary to reassure us in this House that this tribunal, when it has been set up, will have the power to summon witnesses and to bring witnesses before it by subpoena, that those witnesses will be the persons which the tribunal thinks best can help it, and that the tribunal will also have powers of discovery and the power to publish, so that the tribunal of this country can see exactly what is the evidence upon which these matters have been brought forward by those persons not concerned in a political sense.
I presume that the tribunal will be entitled to order such documents as are in the possession of the hon. Gentleman


the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), so that they can be produced before the tribunal and there assessed. I want an assurance, which I hope I shall receive from my right hon. Friend, that this tribunal will have the power to investigate this matter and lay the whole of the story before the people of the country.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The hon. Gentleman can have the assurance he wants if he takes the trouble to read the Act, which sets it out precisely. I want to make one or two short points.

Mr. Rawlinson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman so sure that it is complete with regard to discovery where we do not have parties and the kind of discovery we want from persons outside who have made allegations and who may perhaps be witnesses or may not be witnesses?

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Member looks at Section 1 (2, c) it will give him the answer.
I am very glad indeed that it has been made perfectly clear, as I think it was yesterday—and that this has been a complete "red herring"—that there never was any kind of reflection upon the personal honesty of Mr. Poole. I have known him for a good many years and I personally can say that I should find it quite incredible that he would use information provided to him in order to make money out of it. I do not think that anyone who knew Mr. Oliver Poole would have any other opinion.
The question here—the important question—is the gross political impropriety of providing advance information about Government action to party officials. That is the impropriety, the political impropriety and the political indiscretion which we are talking about, and these sort of indiscretions have been far too common on that Front Bench. Indeed, it was not altogether surprising that it should have been the former Secretary of State for Scotland who intervened to protest because he, perhaps alone, cannot be accused of any indiscretion on the Front Bench or, indeed, of saying anything else.

Mr. J. Stuart: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me to delay the proceedings further I would say more, but I would prefer that we got on with the Motion.

Mr. Paget: My point is this. I was really shocked, and I say quite deliberately, shocked, at the quite unprecedented manner in which the Prime Minister introduced this Motion. He proposed it in a manner which, in so far as he was able, directed what the Government wanted found. Never has a Motion such as this been introduced in terms anything like that. The importance of this is—I am very glad indeed that the Attorney-General is here—that the Government which introduce this Motion in those terms, indicating so clearly what they want to come out of the tribunal, are themselves the source of information to go to the tribunal, because it is the Government, through the official Solicitor and through the Attorney-General, that are the channel through which information goes to this tribunal; and if anything could have been designed to injure that channel and taint that source it was the Prime Minister's speech today.
The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act is one which I have criticised before, because it is a grossly unjust act. As a result of this Act we have an inquiry at large with a report at the end, which may be totally destructive to a number of careers, without any charge ever having been formulated against the people concerned, and without their ever having had an opportunity to answer. That has occurred before. In the report passages affecting particular people may have been founded on evidence that emerged quite late in the inquiry, when the individual had no chance at all to meet it.
I have always thought that this was an exceedingly bad Act. The original point of the Act was the source of the information. The Act was passed in a hurry. It was passed when an hon. Member of this House, a Captain Loseby, produced evidence, which shocked the House, as to improprieties in the disposal of war surplus after the 1914–1918 war. It was an incident of which probably only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) has personal recollection, but it was sensational at the time.
The Act sprang out of the mind of Gordon Hewart, who was then the Attorney-General. If one looks at that inquiry one will see that the conception of Gordon Hewart, when he was Attorney-General, was that at the inquiry his function was to protect the Government, and most certainly he did so. Have a look at that inquiry and see how the Government were shielded, and how, alone, a single back bench Member was left to conduct the prosecution, if that is the right word, to make good the allegations, which were resisted with the full power and strength of the Government.
When Sir Hartley Shawcross—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am so sorry, I forgot he was still a Member—when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) was Attorney-General, he took the opposite view. He took the view that every conceivable piece of gossip which could possibly be damaging to any of his colleagues should be produced as dramatically as possible. Between those two extremes, what is the line which the Attorney-General is going to take? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a pretty strong hint from the Prime Minister as to the line he is expected to take and that is what we are complaining about.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to suggest that I would not discharge my duty. I rather resent that, because in my view my duty is quite clear. If I appear before that tribunal it will be to give the tribunal every possible assistance in the discharge of its duty by bringing before it all relevant information, from whatever source it may come.

Mr. Paget: I am not suggesting for one moment that the Attorney-General will not perform his duty as he conceives it. I have known the right hon. and learned Gentleman long enough to be confident of that. I am only saying that within the precedents of this Act there is such a vastly different conception as to what is the duty of the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given me an opportunity of making clear what I regard my duty to be in relation to the tribunal.

Mr. Paget: I am extremely glad if that is the conception. The damaging thing here, the thing that worries me about this incident, is what occurred on the Stock Exchange kerb after 3.30 on Wednesday, 18th September. The Daily Express City column on Thursday, 19th September—that is, before the Bank Rate news had broken—referring to the Wednesday said:
The big boys were still buying gilt-edged. Rises were up to 7s. 6d.
Now that was the Wednesday. Indeed, if one looks down the columns one can see that there was one stock which had fallen by one-sixteenth, whereas every other gilt-edged stock had risen between one-sixteenth and three-eights that day. This seems somewhat inconsistent with the explanation of intelligent anticipation. What happened after 3.30 which provided the intelligent anticipation that led to wholesale buying up to £10 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "Selling."] Selling—I meant that if somebody buys, somebody sells. But what led to a market, which had closed buoyant at 3.30, suddenly cracking? What led to the sort of situation which caused Wedd and Owen to write to all their clients, saying this:
In order to assist our broker friends, we have for many years past been prepared to deal after the close of the House. The facility has occasionally been abused but never to the extent it was on Wednesday night. The abuse was obviously the responsibility of clients.
What we want to know is who were those clients, who were the people who made this killing, and who made the money on the Wednesday night? When we have found that out, and looked at these books, then the question is to get those people up and trace why they did it. It is no use starting at the Treasury end. What one has to do is to look at the Stock Exchange end where the facts happened, and trace back to see what made those facts happen.
I hope and believe that the Attorney-General will take the view that such an investigation is within the terms of reference. That will be the way in which this will have to be gone about, because it will not be worth very much as an investigation unless something of that kind is done.

4.47 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I do not want to traverse this debate. I simply want to make one announcement. It will be my duty, in


my position as Secretary of State, to make an announcement about the appointment of this tribunal and its constitution.
This will be done at the earliest possible time. Directly I am able to finish the constitution, I will announce the news to the House, subject to the ordinary rules of order as dictated by Mr. Speaker. This cannot be done until the Motion is passed in both Houses. I will then take the first opportunity of informing the House as was done on a previous occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he set up a similar tribunal. I do not know what hour this will be, or even what date, but I will do so as soon as possible.
The other point I want to make is in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) and to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). There is no doubt that the reading of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, as interpreted by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, is correct. Under Section 1 (1) the tribunal has the power of
…enforcing the attendance of witnesses, examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise…the compelling the production of documents…subject to rules of court, the issuing of a commission or request to examine

witnesses abroad; and a summons signed by one or more of the members of the tribunal may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents
The hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to subsection 2 (2), which states that if any person, on being duly summoned or otherwise, does not comply with the wishes of the tribunal, then there are powers to commit for contempt. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said is, therefore, correct. This tribunal has the powers of the High Court. I have little doubt that the tribunal will be able to do its job thoroughly and that, as Mr. Speaker has said, the investigation will be most searching and most thorough; and the more searching and thorough it is the more justified and satisfied the Government will be.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, whether there is any justification for allegations that information about the raising of Bank Rate was improperly disclosed to any person, and whether if there was any such disclosure any use was made of such information for the purpose of private gain.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

4.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.
This is the first of five Motions which stand on the Order Paper, three of them in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and two in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I understand that each Motion has to be put separately but that it has been found convenient in former years that a general debate should take place on the first Motion. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for this course.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I am in the hands of the House. I am perfectly willing for that course to be taken. I understand that after the general discussion each Motion must be put forthwith when we come to it.

Sir Frank Soskice: I believe it is the custom, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in these debates for that course to be followed. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that it was obviously the convenient course to have a general debate on the first Motion and for the Question on each of the other Motions to be put separately.

Mr. Simon: The Motions are for the continuance of various emergency provisions for another year. We have presented a White Paper on the continuance of emergency legislation, in which is a list of the provisions which we propose should be so extended, and an explanation of the procedure under the various enactments under which the five Motions are put to the House.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), on the last occasion when this matter was debated, told the story

of the American jury who, after a retirement of some three hours, returned to court and said to the judge, "We want to know whether what your Honour said is really the law or only what you think it is." My rôle will be to tell the House what I think is the law that emerges from the emergency legislation, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be available to speak at the end of the debate and will be able to tell the House, with the full authority of a Law Officer, what the law really is. But this emergency legislation is really an anthology of law, and my hon. Friends the Ministers of the various Departments who exercise the principal powers under the emergency legislation are present on the Treasury Bench and will be glad to answer questions as to their exercise.
This legislation had its origin in the stern circumstances of war. In this country we do not hold, with Cicero, that in war the laws fall silent. Nevertheless modern war calls for quicker processes than those by which a watchful legislature protects the citizen in peace time; and many of our traditional and treasured rights and liberties had for the time of war to be subordinated to the over-riding struggle to preserve them for all time. The provisions of the resulting emergency legislation were by definition temporary. But in struggling out of a world-war into the shaken post-war world, it was not possible at a stroke to cancel all that had been done. Further, since time had not stood still, it was found that much of the temporary legislation had some permanent good in it, and so it had to be retained until governments could assess what should take its place, and what safeguards should be added to protect our rights.
In these circumstances the post-war Acts set out in the White Paper were passed. With some modifications, they provided for the continuance of the power to govern by decree which had been granted by the war-time legislation. But, at the same time, these post-war Acts provided, as a safeguard, for annual renewal. It is this that gives rise to the Motions before the House.
There is a difference of view between the two sides of the House as to how far the life of the citizen and the economic processes of the nation should be


subject to central direction. But I do not think there is very much difference between us that such controls as are imposed should be by traditional forms of legislation directed to specific objects rather than by blanket powers exercisable by Ministerial decree and under regulations designed for circumstances very different from those that obtain today.
I therefore propose, first, to tell the House what has already been done by the Government in the way of reducing the volume of emergency legislation—partly by abrogation and partly by replacement in statutory form—dealing specifically with what has gone during the past year. Secondly, I shall deal with these regulations which we are asking the House to renew, but which we hope will expire during the year. I shall turn, thirdly, to those emergency provisions which we are asking the House to renew, but which we intend to supersede by permanent legislation to be introduced during the Session. Fourthly, I will deal with the emergency legislation which is likely to be still extant this time next year—to indicate its purpose and scope, and also our long-term policy in this field.
Now I will deal with the reduction in the bulk of emergency legislation. I have with me the 1957 and 1950 volumes of Defence Regulations. The 1957 one runs to about 125 pages fewer than the 1950 volume, and also costs 1s. less to buy. Therefore, from the point of view of sheer bulk, the weight of Defence Regulations to which the citizen is subject is very considerably less today.
In 1951, there still survived 215 Defence Regulations. I think it is fair to say that hardly an aspect of our national life could not have been regulated by Ministerial decree. By this time last year the number had been reduced to 67, of which only 32 were substantive. Of that 67, at this time last year the House found it necessary to renew only 58. Last year Lord Tenby, the then Home Secretary, said, in moving similar Motions to those I am now moving:
…we shall be left at this time next year with, at most, 56 Defence Regulations, of which 35 may be described as ancillary and formal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1565.]
We have, in fact, done considerably better than that. We are asking the House to

renew only 42 Regulations, only 17 of which comprise substantive powers.
The diminishing impact of Defence Regulations upon the ordinary citizens may be in some part measured by the rapid fall in the number of persons offending against them. In 1951, there were over 6,000 successful prosecutions. In 1955 the figure had fallen to 251; and in 1956 it had fallen again to 167.
It can similarly be measured by the reduction in the number of buildings held under requisition by Government Departments. In 1951, 3,858 buildings were so held. In September, 1956, the figure had fallen to 376. This September, it was 248—a reduction on the 1951 figure of over 93 per cent., and even on the 1956 figure of 34 per cent.
During the past year Defence Regulation 60A and paragraph (2) of Regulation 59 were revoked on the coming into operation of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. The Sugar Industry Act, 1942, which was among the emergency legislation continued last year, was superseded by the Sugar Act, 1956. A substantial portion of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939, was repealed by the Agriculture Act, 1957, and I am glad to say that the remaining part of these Regulations will not need renewal.
Not all the 42 Regulations which we propose to continue, and the emergency enactments covered by the Motions, will survive for the full year; and I turn now to consider those in this class. Defence Regulation 62 gives power to the Minister of Agriculture to control the cultivation of requisitioned land, and to apply the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, to contracts of occupation: it is retained only to enable the Minister to wind up operations; and if all goes well it will have gone by next year.
The third Motion proposes to continue for one year the extension of Parts I and III of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, which modify the Wheat Acts of 1932 and 1939 and the Land Drainage Act of 1930. Part III has long been unnecessary, but could not easily be repealed independently of Part I. Part I is retained because the affairs of the Wheat Commission must be wound up before it goes. The Agriculture Act, 1957, will then take over, with a consequential repeal of the Wheat Acts, and


the third Motion should therefore be unnecessary next year. The House, I am sure, will be glad that the purely agricultural operations of the Ministry will no longer have to be looked for in the volume of Emergency Legislation.
I now turn to those emergency provisions which we intend to supersede by permanent legislation to be introduced in the course of the year. These provisions include Defence Regulations 49, 50, 51, 51A, 52 and 85. These Regulations are now used mainly for defence purposes and to provide the legislative basis for carrying on open-cast coal mining. But the fact remains that the Regulations are, as the House knows, couched in terms which confer on the Ministers concerned a degree of authority which is alien to the political philosophy at any rate of those on this side of the House.
As the House was informed by the Gracious Speech, the Government have completed a comprehensive review of the emergency powers relating to land. We shall introduce legislation which will sweep away the Defence Regulations I have mentioned in their application to land. Such powers as are still needed will rest on normal, traditional Parliamentary procedures and no longer on decree. Further, in contrast to the type of authority contained in the Defence Regulations, these powers will be related to specified particular purposes; and they will be exercisable both on a clearly defined basis and as far as possible in accordance with procedures in conformity with the spirit of the Franks Report.
This legislation will also set a term to the "war period" which is prescribed in the Requisitioned Land and War Works Acts. In other words, a date will be set for the period within which all property still requisitioned must either be relinquished or made subject to agreements voluntarily entered into. Similarly, Section 2 of the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Act, 1951, which enables highways to be temporarily closed or diverted for defence purposes, will also be brought to an end.
In the same class fall the emergency Regulations relating to patents and trade marks. We ask under the second Motion that the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941, should be renewed. The Regulations give power to authorise; he use for the services of the

Crown of drawings, models, plans and other documents relating to unpatented inventions. The fourth and fifth Motions ask for the continuation of provisions contained in the Patents Act, 1949, and the Registered Designs Act, 1949.
We have hoped for some time—since the Report of the Howitt Committee, in fact, which was published in June, 1956—to be able to bring proposals before the House which would replace these temporary provisions. Discussions have taken place with industry. It is hoped that it will be possible shortly to bring before Parliament proposals for permanent legislation.
I do not of course presume to forecast the views of the House on the legislation which will come before it in the Session; but it is certainly the hope of the Government that twelve months hence the House will have put to it only the first and second Motions, and under them a much depleted list of emergency provisions. I turn now to consider this residue.
I deal first under this head with those powers which are used to control the supply of strategic goods to countries which might, in our view, misapply them. The control of supply from the United Kingdom is derived from the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which does not require annual renewal. That Act does not, however, provide for control of the supply of strategic goods situated outside the United Kingdom; and such control is necessary to enable this country to comply with its international obligations. It is therefore necessary to retain the power specifically given by Defence Regulation 55 for imposing prohibitions or restrictions on such dealings. These controls are reinforced by the Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order, 1953, made under Defence Regulation 46, which controls the voyages which British ships may make.
Defence Regulations 50A and 56 are used for a very different sort of purpose. They make possible the quick taking of water for essential purposes, in time of drought, and the relaxation of various legal requirements laid upon water undertakings by pre-war legislation. We are considering the future of these Regulations; but I regret that I am at present unable to tell the House how soon


definite proposals could be brought forward to abrogate or replace these powers.
Defence Regulations 55, 55AA and 55AB give power to control the supply and sale of named commodities. Regulation 55 provided the main authority for economic controls, including food rationing and raw materials controls. There has been a progressive reduction in the use of such controls, and their scope was considerably narrowed by the Defence Regulations (No. 9) Order, 1954. Since then its scope has been further reduced in some directions and extended in others. At present it authorises the making of orders for regulating or prohibiting the production, distribution, consumption, etc., of coal and similar fuels, petroleum, oil and associated products, iron and steel scrap, various agricultural products, and bread, flour and such "welfare foods" as dried milk and concentrated orange juice. Regulation 55AA is ancillary to it, and 55AB provides powers of price control. Regulation 55 also enables the Government to control the disposal and possession of a wide range of goods under hire purchase, credit sale and hiring agreements, as an integral part of the policy of credit restriction.
The power to control petroleum and oils is not now exercised. The developments in agricultural legislation which I have spoken of earlier will leave a very small residue of food supply controls still exercised under this Regulation. The other powers are likely to be needed for a considerable time, some of them perhaps permanently. A thorough review of these powers, as a basis for putting forward proposals for permanent legislation, must still take some little time.
Regulations 58AA and 59 of the Defence (General) Regulations are both needed. Under 58AA, the Industrial Disputes Tribunal is kept in being, and Regulation 59, by its one remaining substantive paragraph, permits exemption from some insufficiently flexible provisions of the Factories Act, 1937. These cannot be dispensed with until there is legislation to replace them.
I turn, finally, to the supplementary codes. I have already spoken about the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations. The Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1939, have one substantive

provision. This is primarily needed to supplement our existing exchange control powers over financial relations with other sterling countries. For example, the disposal of foreign currency securities by residents in other sterling area countries is controlled under this Regulation. It is also used specifically to supplement exchange control powers in Hong Kong, and to control certain assets of persons resident outside the sterling area.
Finally, Regulation 6 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, makes it clear that serving members of the Forces may be used temporarily for agricultural or other urgent work of national importance.
The continuation of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act under the first Motion will have the incidental result of affecting the continuance of the three other Acts mentioned in paragraph 5 of the White Paper. I have spoken already of two of them when I dealt with the provisions which we intend to replace during the year with permanent legislation.
The third Act is the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939. Certain powers conferred by that Act are temporarily increased by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and these extended powers are still needed to enable the Board of Trade to wind up its current trading operations in raw materials, and to continue public trading in imported jute goods in order to safeguard the United Kingdom jute industry.
That, then, is the picture. We are asking for the renewal of 42 Defence Regulations, only 17 of which comprise substantive powers.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Simon: Of these, we hope in the course of the year that it may be possible to do away with five, dealing with land and agriculture, and we have hopes of disposing also of the one substantive provision dealing with patents. This would leave only eleven—which are, in general, economic—for further action.
This is a considerable reduction on the twenty-three substantive Regulations which the House renewed last year. Those which have gone or are going have all been looked at very carefully, so that


what has more than temporary value in them could be replaced by permanent legislation. The intention of the Government to get rid of the remaining Regulations will, I hope, be clear to the House from what has been done already and what I have said about the future. In the meantime, we are satisfied that the Regulations and emergency enactments covered by the Motions are necessary, and I therefore ask the House to agree to continue them for a further year.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I cannot help thanking the Minister with a very full heart, for the wealth of information which he has deployed to the House. I must, however,—and I assure him that I intend no offence—accuse him of committing a very serious oratorical sin on two occasions when he prefaced a sentence with the word "finally." That raised my expectations very cruelly, subsequently, I am afraid, to dash them to the ground. His task in delivering his address was somewhat easier than mine in trying to absorb it. I have no doubt that everything he said was strictly accurate and right according to the letter of the page, for which I do not blame him in the least. I cannot think that anybody would think of delivering, ex promptu, a speech containing all the richesse which his speech contained.
Trying to collect myself in the face of the speech to which I have listened, I would say at once that, in principle, on the first of the five Motions that we are discussing hon. Members on this side of the House have no objection to the Government's asking for a prolongation of the powers which they seek. We should be much more interested in the use that the Government would seek to make of those powers. It would be hardly profitable—even if it were in order—to seek to examine, one by one, the various steps that the Government have taken in the exercise of these powers in the past, or even in the past year.
In the course of our debates on the Gracious Speech we have very thoroughly examined—and, from our side, criticised—the user which the Government have made or, as we would think it more appropriate to describe it, the failure of the Government to make use of the powers which they should have used in order to try to steer this country out of

the manifold difficulties which perplex it at the moment.
This debate can perhaps be cut rather short, having regard to the fact that a debate in almost exactly similar terms took place almost exactly a year ago. The then Home Secretary explained to the House in words similar to those used by the Minister today, and with equal clarity and thoroughness, the powers which the Government sought to retain and those which they felt able to relax. That debate was on the morrow of the Suez disaster. Our disasters at the moment are rather more economic in character but, broadly speaking, the situation is the same; the Government, in a period of crisis, ask for powers which they apparently do not wish to exercise, but no doubt, they have good reasons for doing so.
I want to press the Minister a little more closely upon one of the statements made by the then Home Secretary in a speech from which the Minister quoted today—although he did not quote the passage to which I want to refer. The Home Secretary, speaking on 20th November, 1956, having referred to the powers contained in these Defence Regulations, proceeded to use the following language:
As I told the House last year, it is broadly true that the powers now remaining cannot be given up until Parliament replaces them by permanent legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1568.]
I compare that statement, in its broad aspect, with the statement made by the Minister today, and I should very much like to know from the right hon. and learned Member who is to reply how far the Government now resile from that statement of the then Home Secretary. It seems to me to go much further than the statement made by the Minister today. As I understand it, he indicated the intention of the Government as being to abandon, in due course, a substantial number of these powers, although in point of fact they were not reflected by permanent legislation on the Statute Book. I should like to know, in particular, with regard to some of these Defence Regulations—the Minister gave an answer, I think, but I was not able wholly to retain it—when they are to find their place as permanent legislation.
Speaking for myself and for my right hon. and hon. Friends, I think we would recognise that what the Home Secretary


said was, indeed, broadly speaking, and no doubt subject to qualification and amendment here and there, necessary and right. I should like, in particular, for example, to refer to some of the Defence Regulations which are contained in the White Paper that is before us today and which has been laid by the Government. Supposing we look, for example, at Defence Regulation 55. That is the Defence Regulation which is marked in the index in the now existing volume of Defence Regulations as the Defence Regulation designed for the purpose of
the general control of industry.
If hon. Members will be so good as to look at it they will see that it is extremely wide in scope. It was a Defence Regulation which, as the Minister said, had its origin during the war in a period of crisis. But it was found necessary to reproduce these powers after the war and to extend the scope of their possible user by various Measures, the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, and the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947, and a later Measure, too.
The purposes for which those powers could be used were purposes certainly conducive to the general public interest. They included
promoting productivity of industry, agriculture and commerce, fostering and directing exports and reducing imports and redressing the balance of trade, and, generally, for ensuring that the whole resources of the community were available for use and were used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community.
That is the formulation of purpose as taken from Section 1 of the 1947 Act; and for the attainment of those purposes, Defence Regulation 55, which the Minister seeks to retain, enabled what is described as the authorised Department to do the following things:
To provide by order for regulating or prohibiting the production, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles of any description.
I simply pose the question, in the light of what was said by the Secretary of State last year, the question whether we are to anticipate in due course that the very wide powers contained in the Defence Regulation are to find their place permanently on the Statute Book. If they are, then I have no doubt that the Minister would agree that the House would want to look

at them very closely and to see that they were set out in detail with the necessary safeguards, and appropriate qualifications on the Statute Book.
I should like to know, in particular, if it is the intention of the Government that the Secretary of State's purpose is to be implemented and, if, indeed, we are to see that Regulation on the Statute Book, when we can expect to see a Measure for that purpose introduced. Last year, the Government used that Regulation, I think, for the purpose of petrol rationing which they introduced following their mismanagement of the Suez situation.
The Minister told us today that the present use to which it is put is for the purpose of the control of the sale of strategic goods situated outside and not inside the United Kingdom. Never mind what the purposes are. If this is to become part of our permanent legislation, I feel that it would be a matter of very considerable interest to the House to know when that is to be achieved and in what form. No doubt the House will be most interested in a Measure for that purpose. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about that, or, if the Home Secretary in the language which he used last year went too far, or, rather, if the Government have changed their opinion on the matter, that he will indicate clearly the extent to which the Government intend to relinquish those powers and when.
Presumably, if the powers are to be relinquished in part, legislation would be necessary. As I understand the procedure in terms of which the present Motions are launched, it is only open to the House by its vote either to approve the continuance of the power in toto or to reject it in toto. There is no way in terms of the present Motions to amend the powers which it is sought to renew. They have either to be extended in toto or rejected in toto. Accordingly, if it is the intention of the Government to resile from what the Home Secretary said then the House would like to know in what sense it is proposed to abandon these powers, and when, and subject to what qualifications, we may expect to see legislation for that purpose.
Another reason I think that we should very much like to know what are the Government's intentions with regard to


the introduction of legislation is that any legislation designed permanently to give this sort of power to the Government would obviously need to include a number of safeguards in the way of inquiries, and so on, to protect individual interests and, generally, to make sure that the system functioned fairly and efficiently as between all persons concerned.
Perhaps that observation particularly applies to other Regulations which are within the scope of the first Motion which the House is considering, namely, the Motion which deals with Regulations 50, 50A, 51 and 51A. Those are the Defence Regulations which deal with the use and entry on land and the acquisition of land by the various authorised Departments which are described, I think in Defence Regulation 46, as entitled to enter upon land. They are not limited to the Service Departments. A number of other Departments, for example the Board of Trade, are also included. But, as I read those Regulations, the power to enter upon and to use land as embodied in those Regulations, does not make any form of public or other inquiry requisite of the type contemplated, for example, in the Franks Report which the House recently discussed.
The Government have indicated their intention of adopting in large measure the recommendations of the Franks Report, and I should have thought—perhaps the Minister will be able to agree with me—that when we see the legislation which is to make those powers permanent to the extent to which they are to be made permanent—and I think I understood the Minister to say that a number of them were—that legislation should include the proper requirements as to the holding of inquiries in order to assess accurately the impact upon private and other interests of acquisition and user by Government Departments of land for the various purposes authorised by the Regulations.
Perhaps that may be said to be so all the more for the reason that when land is to be actually compulsorily acquired as distinct from used and entered upon, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, has already regularised the whole of the necessary procedure. If a local authority or another authorised Department is to acquire land compulsorily under the 1946 Act it has to comply

with the authorised procedure as laid down in terms of that Act. It is possibly somewhat anomalous, if I have got the situation correctly, that under the terms of the Defence Regulations—No. 50, for example—which are now being prolonged, land can be used without the necessity of similar compliance.
I thing I am right in saying—and I have before me Command Paper 7278 of 1956 and perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to confirm whether I am right or wrong in this—that it has been recognised by the Government that there should be inquiries, although paragraph 46 of the Command Paper points out that, as the inquiry in the case of the Service Departments is non-statutory, there is no power to summon witnesses by subpoena, to take evidence on oath, or to charge expenses on any body or person.
I only hope that we shall soon see the appropriate legislation for that purpose and that the legislation will cover all these various matters, being matters which are within the general purview of the Franks Report. The process has gone on year after year, under both the former Government and the present Government, of renewing by Motions such as the ones we are considering the powers contained in these Defence Regulations. Without speaking in any partisan fashion or criticising either Government on that score, I think that probably on both sides of the House we would agree that on the whole it is not satisfactory to continue that piecemeal operation and that the Government should get down to the task of saying quite clearly in legislation which of these powers are to be permanently retained and which are to be abandoned.
I should have thought that a number of the Regulations ought to be made permanently part of our existing legislation, particularly a number of the powers contained in Defence Regulation 55. If I understood the Minister correctly, he was of the same view; and some of the powers in that Regulation at any rate are to be made permanent features of our statute law.
I think this is a debate which is not susceptible of great prolongation, nor would I attempt to prolong it inordinately. It is, after all, a short point. We have these powers which have been used, of the exercise of which we have had long


experience, and I think they have been usefully used, although we would say in the case of the present Government not very wisely used and not very adequately used. Otherwise, perhaps, the country would not be in the very difficult situation in which it is today. That, however, is outside the scope of the present debate and raises much wider issues.
I am trying to avoid committing the oratorical sin of which I accused the Minister, and I would end by saying that on this side of the House we would have no intention of opposing the Government having these powers for another year. However, I should be very grateful if the Solicitor-General would be so good as to give such answer as he is able at present to the various questions I have voiced and the various anxieties to which I have referred, which, I can assure him, are very genuinely felt on this and, I think, on the opposite side of the House.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I, too, intend to detain the House for only a few minutes, but I wish to say how glad I am to learn that the Government are intending to drop some emergency legislation and, where necessary, to implement permanent legislation, particularly in regard to the occupation and requisitioning of land.
This is really a question of democracy. I think it is true to say that at present the Government are mainly using these emergency powers for grabbing land for opencast mining operations. I believe the Government have told the Minister of Power to issue instructions to the Coal Board that the production of opencast coal should be maximised during the next ten years.
I do not want to argue against the production of coal by opencast methods. I think it is a horrible way of obtaining coal, particularly for those who are living in the vicinity, but at a time when we are still as desperately short of coal as we were during the war, and when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars importing coal into this country, I think that a case can be made in the national interest for having opencast mining operations. Last year, 12 million tons of coal were produced by this method and it was done on an economic basis.
The north of England, in particular, is suffering from opencast operations. If these operations were conducted in the Home Counties, there would be such an outcry that very soon they would be brought to a halt, but, because northerners are prepared to face these terrible things pacifically, they are allowed to continue. I think it true to say that in Northumberland alone the Coal Board is hoping to raise 10 million tons by opencast methods during the next few years. I can assure the Government that the very word "opencast" sends a shiver down the spines of the agricultural community.
It is true that the compensation, both to owners and to occupiers of agricultural land, has recently been considerably increased, but nevertheless the agricultural community would much prefer to be left in possession of their land without having the horror of opencast mining imposed upon them. Although every possible step may be taken to replace the soil in good condition, we fear that the long-term fertility of the land may suffer. Certainly, better arrangements could and should be made for improving the drainage of the land when it is handed back for agricultural cultivation.
I would urge on the Government that far more attention should be paid to the amenity aspect of this problem, because in Northumberland the Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board has been conducting operations right into the middle of towns and villages and it has done so in the face of opposition from the local authorities, who have been overruled, and whose case often has not had adequate consideration. I do not think it can be either right or necessary for these operations to be conducted in built-up areas or near houses.
What is more, those who live in the vicinity receive no compensation whatever under present legislation. Owners and occupiers get compensation, but those who live next door and may suffer very serious financial loss receive no compensation. As soon as prospecting takes place, as soon as the rumour goes round that opencast mining is to start in a given area, the value of property inevitably falls and the individuals concerned suffer all the noise—right round the clock—the dirt, and the disfigurement of the


countryside, which has to be seen to be believed, and their property becomes valueless and unsaleable.
Therefore, although opencast mining may be essential in the national interest for the next few years, the rights of the individual ought to have greater consideration than they are at present receiving under the Defence Regulations. It may well be that opencast mining is a paying proposition. All the more so, then, it should be ensured that every and any individual who suffers as the result of those operations should have adequate compensation. I hope that that point will be borne in mind by the Government when they introduce the permanent legislation on this subject.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: This is a great matter, though I do not propose to spend a great deal of time on it. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was a little indiscreet when he twitted my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with oratorical error and finished his own address to us by warning the rest of us to be short in our speeches. That is not the safest way of attaining brevity.

Sir F. Soskice: I hope the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) did not misunderstand me. I hope that he will speak for as long as possible, and I shall endeavour to listen with interest to what he has to say.

Mr. Pickthorn: That was not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman originally said. What he did say was not the best way of encouraging brevity; nor is unnecessary interruption the best way.
This is a great matter, and forty-four years are a long time. Many of us feel as much now as we felt then that, in the long run, and in a deep sense, emergency Regulations giving complete control over exchange movements are the antithesis of freedom. I still believe that to be true. Many other hon. Members believed then and still believe that the taking of land, and not so much that but the taking of easements and rights over land, has been done with gross disregard of the interests and feelings of what are sometimes small sections of the population but deserve to be treated humanly.
Further, many of us believe that the general right of the "gentleman from Whitehall" to know what the public interest is—a thing which no other gentleman ever has known fully and exactly—and, knowing that, to use methods of decree in order to control the whole or part of the commercial and economic life of the country, is a very great matter, but ought long ago to have been brought to an end.
We were very glad to hear how many pages had been cut out of the emergency Regulations and how many fewer of them there are now than there used to be. We are in the fourth Parliament since the war. We are glad that the Government have done as much as they were able to in the last three years, but that we should end the fourth Parliament without having got rid of the emergency Regulations would be a public disaster.
Upon one matter connected especially with Regulation 52 I should like some reassurance, if that is possible. It very often has happened since 1913 or 1914, when the defence of the realm began to be urgent, that a Department, generally a Service Department, has taken over a bit of this or that land—I am thinking especially in terms of my own home—or a bit of foreshore. Having been taken over for one purpose by the Navy, the land is hung on to for a different purpose by the Army, for a third purpose by the Royal Air Force and for a fourth purpose by the Ministry of Supply. I am not parodying at all; these things have happened. The way of life of small but considerable and respectable populations is very much interrupted by this process.
I shall be glad of reassurance that, as and when Regulation 52, and any other relevant Regulation on the same subject, disappear and are subsumed in legislation, that that legislation will take care that title to use does not go on from one Department to another Department under the Crown, that when the Crown takes some kind of right over land for one purpose the land shall be used only for that purpose, and that a new title shall be needed when other Departments seek rights over the same land.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I wish to ask the question which I have put in connection with this matter every year, on the same point as


the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) is postulating, the use of land by the military under Regulation 52.
For some time I have raised questions of the extent to which the Army and the Armed Forces generally are making full use of the land which they are requisitioning. Year by year I have had especially in mind the very large tract of land on the English side of the Border. Many of us have felt that that land, or at any rate a part of it, should be given up to fuller public access.
We are modest in our request. We nave never suggested that though most of this large area is in War Office ownership it should all be handed over, but we have regularly asked whether the War Office would reconsider the use of some of the marginal areas which it occupies under these powers. Again, this year I would ask the War Office to reconsider its use of this territory, particularly that part of it which comes within the newly formed National Park and which stretches right up to the end of the Pennine Way. It is a beautiful part of the country, and it would make a very great deal of difference in the Tyneside area if that fringe portion could be freed once more.
I take this annual opportunity of asking the War Office to look at the matter yet once more and not to give me quite as dusty an answer as I have had up to now. I recognise that the War Office has released some areas and I am delighted at that, but I hope we shall not get a permanent denial in regard to considerable parts of the area to which I refer, but the use that many of us want.

5.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): It would be a disappointment if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) were not here to make his usual speech on this occasion. It comes back with the same fragrance and delight of good smelling heather and fresh air, which it brings each time. I can only reply that what he has been saying will be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for these matters.
I can say no more than that, except what we propose to do about the powers of Service Departments in using land for training and similar purposes. We shall

place before the House, soon, I hope, in this Session, permanent legislation to put those powers on a satisfactory statutory basis and give up the present use of emergency powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had the good fortune to say what he said about opencast mining operations in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the material Ministry, and I know that what he said about compensation for those who have their amenities affected and the like will have been listened to with an attentive ear. As far as the legal aspect of the matter goes, once again we hope, in the course of this Session, to invite the House to pass legislation giving permanent powers to operate the opencast mining which is clearly necessary in the national interest for some years to come, so that no longer in this matter need we depend on emergency powers which everybody desires to get rid of.
The same, in substance, applies to what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was saying about the uses of land under the group of regulations which goes with Regulation 50. We hope in this Session to lay before the House a Bill which will translate such of these powers as are required into statutory powers and will get rid of the emergency powers which at present support them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House, when they see the legislation, which I cannot forecast, will find that throughout it has been carried out absolutely in the spirit of the Franks Report and the recommendations made, so far as is practicably possible in the context.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not forget that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in the course of a debate on these recommendations, drew our attention to certain difficulties which arise, particularly in connection with security matters. I therefore hope that the House will be satisfied when it sees the legislation that full attention has been given to the recommendation of the Franks Committee.
In connection with Regulation 55, about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking, we made no retreat whatever from the broad statement of the then Home Secretary in the debate in November, 1956. I think the


right hon. and learned Gentleman must have had it in mind when he referred to the wide terms of regulations which, in so far as they now stand, are very much cut down and limited as to the commodities to which they can apply. That was done by the Regulation of 1954, and in that state they stand.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the House would want to examine matters closely in the light of the statutory powers taken to make these Regulations permanent, and very much is that a matter of course. They would be clearly a matter for close and prolonged examination. I think it possible, without attaching any blame to him, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what the Joint Under-Secretary said on the point. Perhaps I might, though out of order, quote his exact words, because they represent exactly the position. My hon. and learned Friend said:
A thorough review of these powers as a basis for putting forward proposals for permanent legislation must still take some little time.
I am not holding out hope that we can translate these powers into statutory provisions in the course of this Session. The fact is that when we come down to the hard core of these emergency powers, we find that we are up against much hard work and also heavy demands on the Parliamentary time-table as we go along.
There is no need for me, in these circumstances, to detain the House any longer. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find some delight in these occasions when we are gradually journeying towards the total elimination of emergency powers a long time after the war. There are two principal bugbears in the life of a lawyer. One is that he has to listen to so many of his own and other people's speeches, and the other is that he has to deal with emergency legislation which cannot be found, and which is sometimes ill-drafted and extremely distorted by revocation and amendment. Every time that we get rid of some more, I, for one, rejoice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.

SCHEDULE

The following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, namely:—

Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces);

Regulations eighty-three and eighty-five (Obstruction, and entry upon, and inspection of, land);

Regulations ninety-two, ninety-three, ninety-eight, ninety-nine B, one hundred to one hundred and two, and one hundred and five (Legal and supplementary provisions).

Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.

Regulation one and paragraph (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, &c.) Regulations, 1941.—[Mr. J. E. S. Simon.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage, and would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven) be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.—[Mr. J. E. S. Simon.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

PATENTS

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section forty-nine of the Patents Act, 1949, praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th November,—[Mr. W. J. Taylor.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

REGISTERED DESIGNS

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th November.—[Mr. W. J. Taylor.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.56 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is not a long Bill, but I am afraid it is rather complicated. What we are seeking to do is to modify, without abandoning the basic principles, a body of legislation on this subject which has been built up over quite a long period. I am quite certain that hon. Members of this House are equally keen that our slaughtering facilities in this country should be just as satisfactory as we can possibly make them. By satisfactory, I mean not only adequate in quantity, but in quality as well. I think we are all conscious that there are still many slaughterhouses that badly need to be made much better places than they are at present. Therefore, I think we are all agreed on the general aim of this Bill.
The Bill has been designed to give effect to the policy which we have already described in the White Paper published in May, 1956, and this policy is based on the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses which was set up by my predecessor in 1953. The idea of a central plan for a limited number of slaughterhouses, I agree, seemed sensible and likely in the conditions in the years immediately after the war. The Ministry of Food, during the period of rationing, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will remember, used only about 500 slaughterhouses out of the 12,000 in existence before the war. But when the trade for meat and livestock was restored to private hands in June, 1954, the difficulties inherent in the literal application of a central plan of that kind quickly became apparent.
Certain changes in the pattern of trade, as compared with before the war, became evident. Those organisations of producers like, for instance, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and other big central organisations of meat traders, began to emerge. These operated over a wide area of the country and needed


slaughterhouses, it seemed, under their own control and management and in the districts best suited to the kind of trade they were doing. So, after carefully considering these emerging developments, the Inter-Departmental Committee recommended a more flexible approach, instead of a rigid plan prepared centrally for siting slaughterhouses all over the country. We consulted the various interests concerned, including all local authority organisations, and as a result we decided that the Committee's recommendations seemed to be the sensible course to follow.
What are the main things we need to do They are firstly, to ensure that there are adequate facilities for slaughtering, not only adequate locally but adequate nationally, too; secondly, to secure the most humane conditions possible; thirdly, to maintain the highest possible standards of hygiene throughout all the processes involved in slaughtering; and, fourthly, to provide satisfactory conditions for those who work in slaughterhouses. I have not put that list in any special order of priority. The Bill will promote all those aims over the next few years. Of course, it is not possible in these things to do everything at once and I want to make it clear that the Bill does not, I am afraid, in any way relax the existing restrictions on local authority capital expenditure which are essential in the context of the present national economic situation.
How does the Bill propose to promote those aims Firstly, it provides for the introduction of new and strict minimum standards for the construction and equipment of slaughterhouses. The Regulations which we believe will be suitable have already been published in draft as standards of hygienic construction and as a guide to those who may want to think out their plans. All new slaughterhouses will have to conform to these Regulations. At present, clearly they have not the force of law and are issued only as a guide.
We shall require existing slaughterhouses to be brought up to the new standards as soon as that can be done in practice in any area without reducing the available facilities below the minimum required. We need not necessarily wait until all slaughterhouses throughout the country have been brought up to the required standards. We can proceed as

soon as it seems safe to do so in each area separately.
The second principle is that the Bill maintains the main lines of the present arrangements under which local authorities are generally and ultimately responsible for slaughterhouse facilities. All private slaughterhouses will require a licence from the local authority. The local authority will continue to have powers to provide public slaughterhouses and if those are adequate for the needs of the area, the local authority will retain the power to refuse licences for private slaughterhouses, but subject to the Minister's consent in each case.
The principle, that local authorities should have power to close private slaughterhouses in their districts on the ground that the public facilities are adequate for the requirements of all traders in the district, goes back to the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Indeed, some local authorities, I understand, have possessed similar powers for almost a century under local Acts. We considered very carefully whether this power to refuse licences, if the public facilities were adequate, should now be withdrawn, but, as we explained in the White Paper of May, 1956, we decided that the power ought to be retained.
After all, local authorities have the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the provision of slaughtering facilities in their districts is adequate. We felt that we could not fairly ask them to undertake this responsibility for action in default, as it were, while exposing them, without any safeguards, to the risks that public slaughterhouse provision might be rendered uneconomic by the unrestricted building of private slaughterhouses in a district.
That would have been unfair to the local authorities who were spending public money to provide a service in default. Here I pay tribute to the pioneer work of many authorities in providing more up-to-date and better-equipped premises to replace the old and unsatisfactory ones. We intend to provide what is not available at present, a right of appeal to the Minister whenever a licence is refused under that heading.
The third aim of the Bill is to achieve the modernisation and improvement of slaughterhouses which is called for in two


stages. The first stage will be a period in which traders generally will be free to develop slaughterhouse facilities according to their own economic requirements During this period, applications for licences for new or modernised slaughterhouses will be freely accepted, subject, as I have said, to there being no local restriction on the granting of licences because existing public slaughterhouse facilities are sufficient. Any proposal for development will, of course, have to comply with normal town planning requirements and also be up to the new standards required. That first period of almost complete freedom will begin immediately with the passing of the legislation and will end with the submission by local authorities of reports, with which I will deal in a moment.
Clearly, we must make sure that traders who wish to erect new slaughterhouses or improve present ones have sufficient time to prepare their plans. The Bill provides that that period should in any case be no less than nine months. In most cases it will in practice be a great deal longer—I should say certainly something between one and two years. With the submission by local authorities of reports on existing and proposed slaughtering facilities, the main foundations of the new policy will have been laid.
After that point we believe that it will be desirable to reintroduce some measure of control over the granting of licences. We propose, however, that in that second and long-term period no local authority will be able to refuse or grant a licence without first obtaining the Minister's consent. The Minister will have to grant the licence unless he is satisfied that the existing facilities provided are fully adequate both for local needs and for the wider needs of a wider area. The fourth aim of the Bill is to take steps to secure the safety, health and welfare of workers who are employed in slaughterhouses and in knackers' yards.
I want now to deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the granting and renewal of slaughterhouse licences. I am sorry if the phrasing appears at first sight to be somewhat abstruse. Some hon. Members may even have to read the Clause twice before they fully understand its intention.
The main changes from the present position are as follows. First, as I have said, the power of local authorities to restrict the granting of licences simply on the ground that adequate private facilities are available will be repealed. I think that is the right course. On the other hand, the power to restrict licences where the local authority provides a public slaughterhouse will remain unchanged, subject to an appeal to the Minister. As I have said, except where the local authority restricts a licence on the ground that the public provision is adequate, the Bill provides freedom for a limited period which may be in practice, one to two years during which licences will be freely granted, provided that the new slaughterhouse or the improved slaughterhouse conforms to the standards of hygiene and prevention of cruelty which are laid down in the Regulations. After that limited period, applications will be granted only if the Minister's approval has first been obtained.
Finally under this Clause, local authorities "must"—instead of "may"—refuse licences if the slaughterhouses fail to conform to the hygiene and construction standards which have been laid down. At present that power is permissive on local authorities, and clearly it ought to be mandatory.
I turn to what happens to someone who wants to put up a new slaughterhouse in an area where the local authority provides a public slaughterhouse and, in consequence, has restricted the issue of new licences. That is dealt with in Clause 2, which provides the right of the applicant to appeal to the Minister. The local authority can itself put the application to the Minister; if not, the applicant can require the authority to do so, and the Minister must then consider the whole case. He will hold a public inquiry, if he considers it necessary, and he must grant the licence unless he is satisfied that the need does not exist. I am sorry that I have said that four times, I think, in my speech, but it is a complicated matter and it is also rather important.

Dr. Barnett Stross: What are the conditions which will encourage or persuade the Minister to grant a licence for a private slaughterhouse in an area where there is a public slaughterhouse and where the local


authority is unwilling that a licence should be granted for any further private slaughterhouse?

Mr. Amory: Clearly, if the Minister felt that a case had been made out for it being reasonable for an additional slaughterhouse to be provided—it might be that the public slaughterhouse for one reason or another did not reasonably fill the requirements of a particular trader—he might find himself in disagreement with the view of the local authority.
Clause 3 requires each authority to submit a report to the Minister within a limited period about the slaughterhouse facilities in the area. The intention is that this review should give details of all existing slaughterhouses and all applications for new licences which are outstanding when the report is submitted. Authorities will also be asked in that report to include a review of the probable needs of their areas, as far as they can see them, for new provision, and also to say what in their opinion would be a reasonable date by which the new standards could be applied to existing slaughterhouses in the area. These reports will enable the Minister to decide when the new standards can reasonably be brought into force.
The period of freedom in the Bill to which I referred—stage one—will end with the submission of that report to the Minister, and Clause 4 provides that once the report has been submitted, new licences for which application is made afterwards require the Minister's approval.
Clause 5 deals with certain reasons which might lead to applications for licences being refused. If, following the acceptance of an application for a licence, there has been no progress in putting the project in hand within a reasonable period, the licence can then be cancelled erased from the report. The applicant can appeal to the Minister, and he Minister would no doubt have regard to whether the conditions during the period have been such as to enable the building work to proceed. For instance, the incidence of the credit squeeze would be the kind of factor which it would be right to take into consideration.
I come to the provisions of the Bill safeguarding the safety, health and welfare of the workers, and here we are largely breaking new ground, as at present

relatively few slaughterhouses, mainly those attached to bacon factories, fall within the scope of the Factories Acts. The others which do not come within their scope fall mainly into two categories—first, those small slaughterhouses which are attached to small retail premises and, secondly, the bigger abattoirs which are used separately as slaughterhouses.
It seemed to us that the most satisfactory arrangement would be to treat these two categories differently. The conditions in slaughterhouses in the bigger abattoirs—those which are not attached to small butchers' shops—are, broadly, comparable with those which already fall within the scope of the Factories Acts, and we are therefore providing in the Bill that the Factories Acts should be extended to them, with the responsibility for inspection following the same lines as under the present Factories Acts.
The position is rather different for the slaughterhouses attached to small butchers' shops. They are usually quite small, and slaughtering is often carried out there much less regularly than in the bigger abattoirs. We therefore propose to make regulations in these cases which the local authorities should enforce. We have been led to that decision by the fact that local authorities' officers already visit these small premises to enforce the hygiene Regulations and the regulations for the prevention of cruelty to animals. It therefore seems sensible not to duplicate the inspection of those premises.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Before the Minister leaves this Clause, which we very much welcome, may I put to him a point arising out of it? The Clause gives regulation-making powers. When we turn to the draft Regulations which the Minister has kindly afforded us, we find that in the introduction to these Regulations it is stated that
the necessary Regulations cannot, however, be made under existing powers and enabling legislation will be introduced as soon as the Parliamentary timetable permits.
Where in the Bill do we find the authority which apparently was felt to be lacking when the present draft Regulations were drafted I raise the point only because we are now dealing with a provision for making regulations in respect of the specific purposes of the Factories Act and of the health, safety and welfare of the


workers. I wondered where in the Bill the regulation-making powers are provided.

Mr. Amory: I believe that I am right in saying that the authority is here in this Bill, but I will look into that point, and if that explanation is not accurate, as it may not be, I will ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to refer to it.

Mr. Albert Evans: Can the Minister say whether or not the new regulations will abrogate, or rescind the Public Health Acts now operated by the local authorities as to offensive smells, nuisance to neighbouring people and so on?

Mr. Amory: No, I think not. I think that those fall under the heading of nuisance Regulations, and they will stand exactly as they are at present.
Clause 7 and the Second Schedule make a few changes in the Acts which deal with the slaughter of animals. We think that those Acts really need consolidation, and the Second Schedule consists entirely of minor amendments aimed at tidying up. But Clause 7 makes a more important change about which I should like to say a word or two.
The law in this country has for some years required animals to be stunned instantaneously, but the scientists have now produced an alternative humane method of rendering animals unconscious—I hope that I am not rendering human beings unconscious with a speech on this Bill. This alternative method is already in use abroad for pigs, and consists of anaesthetising them with carbon-dioxide. I have had this process investigated with great care, and so has the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, which think that it is a good method if properly controlled. Other satisfactory methods of anaesthetising animals may, of course, be devised in the future, so in the Bill we propose to take power by regulation to permit such methods, after consulting the animal welfare societies and other interests concerned.
Clause 8 confers on officers of my Department powers to enter slaughterhouses in order to see that the hygiene

Regulations are enforced. Enforcement is the duty of the local authorities, and the last thing that I want is to duplicate work by the officials of the central Government. But I believe that this question of slaughterhouse hygiene is so important that it is very desirable that we should have means of keeping in touch with the progress that local authorities are making with a task that is by no means always easy. I have been strongly urged to adopt this course by the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, and I hope that local authorities will feel that we desire to help, and not to hinder them, by occasional visits from officers who are chosen for their experience in slaughterhouse work. This is a point that we shall no doubt discuss in Committee.
This is really an England and Wales Bill. It is intended that later there shall be a separate Slaughterhouses Bill for Scotland to deal with conditions there. But Clause 13 provides that the provisions of Clause 6 (1), extending the Factories Acts to slaughterhouses, shall apply to Scotland for the same classes of slaughterhouse as in England and Wales.
I hope, but I am not sure, that I have been able to give a reasonably clear, if extremely prosaic, picture of what we set out to achieve by this Bill—

Mr. E. G. Willis: Before the Minister leaves the other point, would he say why it is necessary to put this Scottish provision into this Bill when we are, in fact, to have our own Slaughterhouses Bill?

Mr. Amory: It is due to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour's responsibilities under the Factories Acts extend north of the Tweed and, therefore, it is convenient to deal with it all here. I understand that that is the position.
The White Paper published last year was, I believe, favourably received by the very great majority of the interests concerned, and this Bill just gives statutory effect to the provisions outlined in that White Paper. I think that all hon. Members will be as glad as I am that it has been found possible to bring this much-needed Measure to the House so early in the Session, and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: It is a little ironic that one of the first Measures the Government should introduce should be a Slaughterhouses Bill. I should have thought that the Government themselves were a sufficient shambles to feel some embarrassment in such action. But I will exercise some restraint, and acknowledge at once that we are much obliged to the Minister for responding to pressure, and for implementing the promise he made to bring forward, as soon as he could, a Bill to improve the conditions in our slaughterhouses. I would at once acknowledge, too, that he is, in fact, endeavouring to do something to improve those conditions.
Personally, I would also like to thank him for affording us, in advance, the draft regulations. This was done in the case of the Food and Drugs Bill, and was very helpful to us in discussing its provisions. I am happy to note, further, that the Food Hygiene Advisory Council has been consulted, and I understand that the provision of powers of entry contained in Clause 8 follow representations made by that Council.
The right hon. Gentleman, too, obviously seeks some consolation in the fact that he has in support the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report, but I say at once—and will, perhaps, cause him a little disappointment by saying it—that that is not a satisfactory Report at at all. I think that everybody in the House recognises that the Committee was not properly constituted for the work it eventually performed.
What it was asked to do was
To prepare a plan recommending in what localities, subject to a policy of moderate concentration, slaughterhouses (other than in bacon factories) should be sited…to recommend an order of priority of new works…to make recommendations on the general principles of siting and…facilities…to report on the changes that may be necessary in existing legislation to secure the central regulation of siting and design of slaughterhouses.
That is quite a proper thing to refer to civil servants, but that is not what the Committee has done and what is not proper is to leave questions of policy to bureaucrats. Here there has been a change of policy which has been determined by the bureaucrats—

Mr. Amory: Not finally determined by officials.

Mr. Wiley: Not finally determined by officials, but accepted by the Minister. That is quite disturbing, because in this House we have felt, certainly ever since the Suez crisis, that the Government have lost their morale and has leaned far too much on civil servants. In passing, I would just say that we know that very shortly the Minister is to bring before us further legislation scrapping Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947. We know that he has not been so advised by any responsible body in the agricultural industry, but that he has been so advised by his bureaucrats.
I say again that it is disturbing that under the present Government we are getting far too much reliance upon bureaucrats for policy. Bureaucrats should do specific work within the terms of policy, but here we have another case, where, in fact, they have determined policy. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to conceal that this Report, instead of being a Report for the implementation of a policy of moderate concentration, has become the basis for the abandonment—or, at any rate, the postponement to the very remote future—of any such policy. This is a matter of policy, and I very much regret that we have not had the Minister announcing to the House a bold programme to implement the policy of moderate concentration for our slaughterhouses.
I want to say a word or two about the policy which the Government, implicitly, are now abandoning. Before the war everyone concerned with slaughterhouse policy believed in a policy of moderate concentration. There had been exhaustive inquiries. We had marketing reports in respect of beef and in respect of mutton and lamb and a report on the slaughtering of livestock. We also had a report on the marketing of fatstock in Scotland, and a report on abattoir design. All those reports supportetd, either overtly or by implication, a policy of moderate concentration. Thus, all enlightened opinion before the war accepted the desirability of such a policy.
Then we had our experience during the war when we reduced the number of our slaughterhouses to 700, and by the end of control the number was less than 500. I would remind the House what the position wag about those slaughterhouses.


Successive Ministers of Food had continuous representations made to them about the unsatisfactory condition of some of those slaughterhouses. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Inspection reported in 1951, saying, in effect, that we could not have effective meat inspection in the conditions of our slaughterhouses at that time. In other words, the conditions in the 500 slaughterhouses then operating were so bad that we could not have effective meat inspection.
I make only one quotation from the Report, which will be known to most hon. Members. I would emphasise the use of "present". The Committee reported:
The present deficiencies are often due to slaughterhouses being too small, badly constructed and inadequately equipped. In such circumstances it is impossible to secure the observance of reasonable standards of hygiene.
Today, those slaughterhouses are among the best in operation. Those were the slaughterhouses which had been operated by the Ministry of Food and upon which considerable sums had been spent by the Ministry while it was responsible for them.
It was for this reason that a building programme was begun in 1951, when, in addition to the slaughterhouses at Fareham and Guildford, we decided to build seven model slaughterhouses. That is the last effective step which has been to improve the conditions of our slaughterhouses.
I would remind the House that as we approached the prospect of decontrol the Minister set up seven area advisory committees. They were committees not of bureaucrats, but of representatives of the meat trade, the farmers and the slaughterhouse industry. But what did the Minister of Food tell us on 25th April, 1952? He said:
It has been found that less than a dozen could effectively be brought into use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 41.]
Those were the circumstances at the end of control. The problem had been examined before the war and we had had the experience when the Government were responsible during the period of control. It is not surprising that the late Mr. Maurice Webb should have said that the Labour Government were committed to a policy of moderate concentration. As

he pointed out, that did not mean that there would be public responsibility for all slaughterhouses. He said expressly:
Many slaughterhouses are owned and managed by local authorities, Co-operative societies and private traders. The Government hope that this will continue and will do what they can to encourage the building of new ones by local authorities…
This is very important in view of the development of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation.
…or by any suitable organisations of producers or traders who may be prepared to build provided they do so in accordance with the general scheme…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 1464.]
The successor to Mr. Maurice Webb, Viscount Tenby—I have always regarded him as expressing the lowest common denominator on food and agricultural matters—expressed the same view. He committed the present Government to a policy of moderate concentration. He went further, because he defined what he meant by moderate concentration. He said:
…that is, concentration into some 300 or 400 slaughterhouses throughout Great Britain. The exact number cannot, of course, be determined at once."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 2.]
It may surprise the House that Viscount Tenby reduced the number to 300 or 400, but the development of road transport very much affected the estimates which had been made pre-war about the number of slaughterhouses that might be required. This view was supported by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and also supported eloquently by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who graced us with his advice in the Standing Committee dealing with the last slaughterhouses Measure.
The Inter-Departmental Committee uttered a warning, saying in its interim Report that
private slaughterhouses must not be allowed to slip back into the conditions of the pre-war disorders and numbers.
Does the Committee know what the conditions are in the present slaughterhouses Most of them are an absolute disgrace.
Viscount Tenby estimated—I make no quarrel with him about it—that we should have 2,000 or 2,500 slaughterhouses after decontrol. I make no point of his mis-estimate, but the present


number is about 4,500. This is considerably fewer than the 12,000 before the war, but it is considerably more than the 500 that we had in operation under control, many of which were thoroughly unsatisfactory.
What building has been done since then All the right hon. Gentleman has done is to discourage local authorities. My local authority has pressed as hard as a local authority could to be allowed to build a slaughterhouse. The conditions in Sunderland are absolutely deplorable. There are slaughterhouses in the basements of houses, and that sort of thing. The right hon. Gentleman has not allowed Sunderland to progress. All that has been built since decontrol is a small number of private slaughterhouses, all of which by the standards which the Ministry itself has defined are hopelessly inadequate, and this has, in fact, aggravated the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. I would remind him what the Corporation said in its Annual Report, after the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. It said:
Although improvements are envisaged by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, we are of the opinion that only by means of a new construction programme, planned and executed by experts on the scale we have in mind, can slaughtering practice in this country attain the desired standard of efficiency, economy of operation and hygiene.
In other words, the Corporation is confirming the approach made by the Labour Government. It would wish to build substantially, but how can it afford the risk of doing that when the right hon. Gentleman is encouraging the continuance of the present pattern of slaughterhouses? We all realise that the new regulations are to apply to the present slaughterhouses only in the remote future. We know how extremely difficult it will be to enforce them. It is all very well telling local authorities that they must discuss the matter with the Ministry and advise the Ministry when it would be proper to do what is proposed, but local authorities will find themselves in serious difficulty over the availability of accommodation. That is the problem we have in Sunderland, and we shall continue to have these deplorable slaughterhouses, adjacent to houses, in slum conditions.
We know that this is not peculiar to particular constituencies, because we had the shock of the Balfour Committee's report on the export of livestock and we learned how this trade began. It began because British contractors could not satisfy the hygiene requirements of the United States Army, and they had to send abroad cattle to be slaughtered to meet the requirements of their contracts. The Balfour Committee said:
We were shocked to learn that contracts for the supply of meat for the United States Forces in Europe could not be arranged from this country direct because our slaughterhouses fall short of the standards demanded by the American Army Veterinary Corps. The first shipment abroad of live cattle was in fact made in order to complete an American Army contract, the slaughterhouses in The Hague and Rotterdam having been approved by the American authorities.
That is a very serious reflection upon the condition of slaughterhouses in this country.
These circumstances, I emphasise once again, demanded a vigorous and bold policy of moderate concentration with some steps being taken immediately towards its implementation. But we have had nothing of that from the right hon. Gentleman today. He has not told us that we shall be allowed to build our slaughterhouse in Sunderland. He has not given a promise. It is really rather fatuous to talk about private enterprise building slaughterhouses in these days of 7 per cent. because, at the best of times, slaughterhouses are not an attractive proposition from a business point of view
Here are the reasons why there ought to have been an immediate implementation of a policy of moderate concentration. First, it is the only way in which we can secure more humane slaughtering. It is quite impossible to provide humane conditions in most of the slaughterhouses in this country. Secondly, there are the grounds of hygiene. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in many respects, we are behind most other countries—certainly most other countries in Western Europe—in hygiene in the meat trade. We cannot provide better conditions of hygiene because we cannot provide the better facilities. We can provide the better conditions only if we really tackle the problem of our slaughterhouses, a problem which is aggravated by the fact that we are desperately short of public


health inspectors. How can they carry out their work when there is this large number of tiny, backyard slaughterhouses I have had complaint after complaint from public health inspectors that, in many authority areas, half, or less than half, of the meat is, in fact, inspected.
Another matter which is equally important and which bears upon those two points was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and we appreciate what he is doing. The conditions of work and the status of the people engaged in the industry are most important. It is no good trying to run an industry like this on part-time labour. One cannot provide humane or hygienic conditions in that way. It is a skilled job and must be recognised as such. In fact, we shall provide proper humane and hygienic conditions only so far as we have responsible and skilled workers.
There is another factor which is important, namely, the efficiency of the meat trades. Today, we are at a comparative disadvantage because marketing is affected by slaughtering. We have a very uneconomical pattern of marketing partly because we have an uneconomical pattern of slaughtering. This adds to the distributive costs. If one could deal with meat through less than 500 slaughterhouses, whereas today there are 4,500 slaughterhouses, somebody must pay for that, for the use of the premises, for the capital involved, for the transport and the labour. It is not, therefore, surprising that this is one of the contributory factors explaining the increase in the retail price of meat since decontrol.
Equally important, also, is the serious loss of by-products in this country. This is the principal reason why the Fatstock Marketing Corporation wishes to go into the slaughtering business; it wants to own slaughterhouses and get into the by-product business. There is, for instance, the loss of glandular products. In fact, there is an enormous overall loss of by-products in this country, because they are highly perishable and the by-products works must be close to the slaughterhouses themselves.
Hides are an example, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware. Negotiations are taking place now because the trade is very upset at the deterioration in

hides and skins. Discussions have taken place. At these discussions an estimate of £1 million a year has been put forward as the loss in this regard. That is just one of the losses; because of this inefficiency hides and skins alone are costing us about £1 million a year. If we are talking of losses on this scale, then, of course, we must realise that capital investment is called for. We must not only rid ourselves of a national disgrace—I challenge any national newspaper to hold an investigation into the slaughterhouses of Great Britain—but, quite apart from that, we must rid ourselves of the wasteful use of manpower and resources; the trade is inefficient and often poor meat is the result.
Instead of a determined effort to tackle the problem, which we had hoped for, we have this bureaucrats' paradise—reports, counter-reports, minutes, notes in the margin of the minutes, papers going back and forth. The right hon. Gentleman should have stopped to consider whether the right people are, in any case, making the reports. Of course they are not. Who in the House would suggest that the present local authorities are the right basis for a slaughterhouse policy? That is why I emphasised the policy of moderate concentration. At any rate, one would have expected standing joint committees of local authorities to examine the problem.
What we have here, essentially, is a postponement of the problem. None the less, we shall not oppose the Bill. We do not oppose it, because it does some things which we welcome. It will make it rather easier to build slaughterhouses. I am quite satisfied, however, that we shall not, by and large, obtain the right slaughterhouses, even if slaughterhouses are built. I am not very optimistic in present circumstances about any slaughterhouse building on any substantial scale. At the same time, I know that it is the policy of the Government to discourage local authorities from providing slaughterhouse accommodation, although we know quite well that this is not an attractive form of investment.
I have said that I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for affording us a sight of the draft Regulations before we discuss the Bill. I concede at once that these regulations will help with regard to the provision of new slaughterhouses, but it would have been far better,


as everyone who has had anything to do with the slaughterhouse industry knows, if we had continued what we began in 1951 when we built these model slaughterhouses. That is really what is needed. There is little likelihood that we shall get such building even under these regulations. Since I feel in a generous mood towards the right hon. Gentleman, I will concede that the Bill will bring about some slow movement towards moderate concentration, though, as I have emphasised throughout my speech, I consider that we want much more than that in present circumstances.
Without any reservation, I welcome the provisions relating to the Factories Acts, safety, health and welfare. I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman that he has got a first-class record in this respect. We very much appreciate the initiative that he has taken. We only wish that it had been followed by others of his right hon. Friends. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should be doing this after the Government's abandonment of the Shops Bill.
I recognise that this is probably the most important part of the Bill. None the less, although we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting the Slaughterhouses Bill before the House, which was quite an achievement, we are grievously disappointed that he has not clone more. We hope that, on reflection, he will be with us, in Standing Committee, when we shall endeavour to strengthen the Bill and that he will endeavour to draw the regulations in a form which will carry us much more swiftly towards an effective policy of moderate concentration.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I find myself fundamentally opposed to most of the things that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has just said.
I cannot help but welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has departed from a policy of even moderate concentration. We should remember that a policy of even moderate concentration would have deprived the general public of the great benefit which they will derive from this Bill, namely, that the small butcher slaughtering for himself can afford to be far more selective in the quality of his meat. He can afford to be far more particular in the way that he does the job,

and he can achieve a far higher standard than can ever be achieved by slaughtering on a line system in a really big abattoir. I cannot accept what the hon. Member has just said, that these local craftsmen—because, after all, these butchers who produce such an excellent Sunday joint in most of our villages really are craftsmen—are inefficient or produce bad meat.
I want to declare a threefold interest. First, I am one of the honorary vice-presidents of the National Federation of Meat Traders, which represents about 95 per cent. of all the smaller retail butchers in the country.
I have another very personal and local interest in my own constituency. We seem to differ yet again from Sunderland because we are about to put up one of the new slaughterhouses. We are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for publishing the Regulations so far in advance, so that we were able to go ahead with our plans for the new slaughterhouse. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the firm of auctioneers who are going ahead with this slaughterhouse which will help all the local farmers in the Gainsborough district. I hope that project will not be held up by any restrictions on capital expenditure or by any delay in passing this most excellent Measure through this House.
I ought to declare a third interest, and that is as a farmer and meat producer—an interest which is shared by many Members on both sides of the House. I am certain that all farmers will welcome this Bill. The farmers who are really going to welcome it are those who can still produce really good quality meat, because they know that if they can catch the local butcher's eye in the market, they will get the highest price for their product.
I am sure we all welcome the measures for extending the agricultural safety, health and welfare provisions for the men employed in the slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. I am very glad—here again I differ from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—that the Minister recognises the very large number of part-time people who are bound to be employed in slaughtering. In about 3,500 slaughterhouses throughout the United


Kingdom, slaughtering is done and will continue to be done by people who are employed for only one or two days a week.

Dr. Stross: The hon. Gentleman has made the point very strongly that there are certain advantages in private slaughtering in small slaughterhouses scattered throughout the country as compared with large units. Would he deal with a further advantage which the owners of these small slaughterhouses will have, and which he has not mentioned, namely, that they do not have to be bothered very much with inspection?

Mr. Kimball: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly in my own area all the small slaughterhouses are perfectly adequately inspected. I do not know the conditions in the hon. Gentlemen's area, but in Lincolnshire, which has far more butchers doing their own slaughtering than in any other county in the Kingdom, I have experienced no complaints about the conditions of slaughtering or of work either in slaughterhouses or knackers' yards. While we are on the subject, I hope that it is not the Minister's intention to make regulations whereby all these slaughter-men should be registered.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary, in winding up, will be able to clear up the doubts about the words "curtilage" and "precincts." I hope that it is not intended that the concessions and other provisions of Clause 6 are not to apply to a small slaughterhouse situated further down the village street and not actually on the precincts of the butcher's shop. I hope that we shall have an assurance on this point when my hon. Friend winds up.
I am glad that the Minister has disregarded the question of the processing of by-products with which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North made such great play. If these by-products are really valuable, of course, the butchers will take advantage of the fact. If there is really money to be made from these by-products, the small butchers will not let them run to waste. However, the equipment necessary for processing these by-products would be very expensive. Hon. Members will be aware that the price of hides and skins has fallen considerably

in the last few years, and I doubt whether the money which would be received from this processing would give a fair return on the expensive equipment.
As an honorary vice-president of the National Federation of Meat Traders, I can say that the Federation welcomes the provisions for the extension of the Minister's powers to deal with the more humane slaughter of animals. The Federation and the butchers will do all they can to support the Minister in these measures. On the subject of stunning pens, I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates that in many small slaughterhouses space is the limiting factor in establishing even a small stunning pen. I hope that in the consultations which he will have with the meat trade and with the other interests on this question of the more humane slaughter of animals, he will not forget to consult both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
I do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill through the House, because I know we all wish it to pass smoothly and quickly in order that the general public and the meat trade may have the full benefits from its provisions.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) on his very thorough knowledge of the subject and on the eminence which he has attained on becoming an honorary vice-president of the National Federation of Meat Traders—a position which I once held until I fell out with the Federation over matters of policy.
I should like also to add my congratulations on the fact that the hon. Gentleman should represent a constituency where everything is so perfect. One would think that in Lincolnshire conditions in slaughterhouses must be all that can be desired, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I know some of the slaughterhouses in Lincolnshire and that they are not so perfect as he would make out.
In conversation yesterday on this subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who is very distinguished in medical surgery, I said that while I did not want to be dogmatic—and it is not safe to be dogmatic in


this House—I felt that I was probably the only hon. Member who had actually worked for some time in a slaughterhouse. My hon. Friend immediately put me right by assuming I was talking about licensed slaughterers. He said that as a member of the medical profession. In saying that, I am not declaring an interest to the House. My interest in that respect went some time ago.
Looking back to my slaughterhouse days, I feel grateful for the many changes in the conditions in the intervening years. While conditions in existing slaughterhouses are in many ways appalling, there is no doubt that there has been an improvement since the days when I was a young slaughterman. I remember the condition of some of the buildings. There are many slaughterhouses today which are infinitely better than any which existed in the days that I am thinking about. The equipment is better, and some of the conditions of hygiene are better. I am sure, too, that there is a great improvement in the care of the animals.
There is no doubt that the instruments of slaughter are infinitely better. As a young man I joined in the butchers' agitation against the use of mechanical instruments. Since then I have been completely converted, and there is no doubt that the agitation we went in for against the mechanical instruments as they were coming in was a mistaken agitation. What has been done about the instruments of slaughter has been of tremendous benefit in slaughterhouse work in this country. I suppose that somebody will write a pamphlet one day on the subject and call it "From Poleaxe to Carbon-dioxide" to show the advance that has been made.
The Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, is good so far as it goes, but it does not go anything like far enough. The Bill touches only the fringe of the slaughterhouse problem. While the Bill will certainly, if carried into effect, improve the conditions of the slaughterhouses I am grievously disappointed that the Government have not been able to adopt the moderate concentration which was mentioned at length by my hon. Friend.
With respect to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, I would point out that at

the end of the war, and towards the end of control, the meat trade had made up its mind it would never go back to the small slaughterhouses. Time and time again, at conferences of the National Federation of Meat Traders, I heard that statement made by very responsible people. They had made up their minds that never again would they have the conditions which prevailed before the war, when there were almost 12,000 slaughterhouses. It is a blot on this country's record that we have now about 4,500 slaughterhouses.
I go further than my hon. Friend, for I believe that all slaughterhouses should be owned and controlled by the municipalities. I know that in the rural and especially the remoter areas there are difficulties, and I am prepared to make some allowances because of those difficulties, but I am certain that the wit of man, in these days of modern transport, could overcome those difficulties of providing the facilities so that all the slaughterhouses, even in the country areas, could be under the full control of the municipal authorities, with adequate inspection, which cannot be secured in a multiplicity of slaughterhouses.

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Gentleman says that he would like concentration of slaughterhouses and he says that the meat trade was content to cope with about 500 slaughterhouses. How does he reconcile that with the fact that since there has been a free market, in which butchers have been able to go to the market to select animals of their own choice, they have preferred, and even found it essential, to open their own slaughterhouses, where they can kill the beasts of their choice?

Mr. Royle: I did not say that the butchers were prepared at that time to continue with only 500 slaughterhouses. I said they made up their minds that no longer was it possible to go back to the days before the war and a multiplicity of slaughterhouses. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that even the meat trade is inclined to change its mind. Between 1945 and 1953 it was screaming for freedom. At the last conference of the National Federation of Meat Traders a resolution asked the executive to consider whether licensing and registration would not be a good thing for the trade. Already, it is changing its mind about the


freedom which this Government gave it not very long ago.
I will follow the line the hon. Gentleman took, and talk about those smaller slaughterhouses. Perhaps I shall say one or two things with which he will agree. The great factory abattoirs owned by the municipalities are of tremendous advantage to the country. I would appeal to my hon. Friends who are associated with the Co-operative movement to prevail on their societies to consider selling or handing over to the local authorities the very good abattoirs which Co-operative societies possess.
Public slaughterhouses do not of necessity mean massacres of large numbers of cattle. Where the hon. Member for Gainsborough slips up is that he assumes that in the large slaughterhouses the only people who will be operating are the regular slaughtermen who do nothing else at all but slaughter for a living. He is forgetting that those slaughterhouses, as I envisage them, will be available to the private butchers should they desire to use them.
There is no question of saying to the private butcher who likes to exercise his skill by going to the market and selecting his own cattle, and actually laying his hand on them, that he must cease to practise his wonderful craftsmanship. On the contrary, we say that he may buy his own cattle, his own sheep, but that he must slaughter them under proper conditions and with the right amount of supervision. That is already done in many of the municipal slaughterhouses. Nobody is suggesting that the private butcher should not have the right to kill his own animals under those conditions.
I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that, generally, the man who is not a regular slaughterman is much more likely to look after the well-being of the animals. There is no doubt that the man who is a craftsman in every sense of the word in his butchering, and does not just do only the slaughtering, is not the type of man who will knock the animals about, but I must say, with the greatest possible respect to the professional slaughterman who does nothing else, that there is an inclination, as I know from my experience long ago, to get a little blasé when one is handling cattle. That is not to the benefit of the animals.
My greatest concern is about inspection. The present great shortage of inspectors is one of our big problems today. I suggest to the Minister that by continuing his present policy of opening more and more slaughterhouses he is making the inspection situation considerably worse. The problem of inspection can only be overcome in years to come by the establishment of the larger, concentrated slaughterhouses. These small slaughterhouses are not visited as regularly as we would like them visited by the meat inspectors.
I know from long experience the great temptation in the mind of the meat trader when he opens a carcase and finds signs of tuberculosis down the ribs and sides. The temptation is to get his knife and very skilfully strip out the signs of disease before the inspector arrives on the scene. In many cases, the inspector never arrives at all. That meat goes to the butcher's shop, to the great danger of the consumer. I want to see a situation in which inspectors are in constant attendance, as they already are in the larger abattoirs.
On the question of cruelty, I shall have to speak with great trepidation in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), since I want to say a few words about ritual slaughter and its association with slaughter by those whom, for want of better words, I must describe as Christian butchers. There is an ideal at which we must aim. The White Paper refers to "stunning pens." The only people who use these stunning pens today are our friends of the Jewish faith. I congratulate them on the fact that these pens are universally in use in the ritual slaughter of cattle. The Jewish community have rendered a tremendous service to the country generally by using these pens and drawing so much attention to them.
But there is a misnomer here. The Regulations use the words, "stunning pens," but these pens are used at present for anything but stunning in Jewish ritual slaughter. While I would in no way attempt to say anything of a very deep character about religious beliefs, I have an idea in mind which, I hope, in the near future might lead to a compromise being reached. The Jewish method of slaughter involves the driving of the cattle into the pen. The pen then


revolves and the person responsible for the slaughter comes along with his knife and severs the jugular vein. He does it very efficiently indeed. It is an infinitely better method than those which the Christian butcher uses.

Dr. Stross: It is the severance of both carotid arteries and both jugular veins together.

Mr. Royle: I bow to superior knowledge.
The difference is that the non-Jewish butcher drags the beast into the ring on the end of a rope or chain. I have always believed that if cruelty is involved in the slaughter of animals the cruelty is chiefly in leading up of the animal to the point of slaughter. The actual slaughter is not as cruel as the minutes which lead up to it. Therefore, I should like to see a compromise reached by which the meat trade would accept the stunning pen and every beast would be put into it and there stunned before its throat is cut and bleeding occurs. I should then ask Our Jewish friends, as their part of the compromise, to agree to the stunning if other butchers agree to the pen.
It is impossible to introduce the stunning pen in the vast majority of slaughterhouses today because of the lack of space and, therefore, we cannot have this humane attitude adopted in the slaughter of our cattle. I suggest to the hon. Member for Gainsborough that he must change his mind on this question if he has any concern at all for the cattle that provide our food.
I believe that the knackers' yards need greater attention than slaughterhouses. Conditions in some of them are extremely shocking. I hope that when it comes to putting the Bill into operation, and the Regulations associated with it, greater attention will be paid to the knackers' yards and that attention will not he entirely concentrated on the slaughterhouses.
I have been glad of the opportunity of speaking in the debate, but I think that the Minister has missed a great opportunity. Ali the things that we dream of cannot be accomplished by means of the policies which the Government are pursuing. I hope that either Her Majesty's Government will change their mind about these things very quickly, or that the country will give us on this side of the House the opportunity to put these things

in order. I agree that it would be crazy to oppose the Bill. It certainly takes some steps forward, but I hope to have the opportunity of joining with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North in making this a better Bill.
I thank the Minister for the lucid way in which he explained some of the very difficult points in the Bill. We appreciate that and, in return, we shall help to make it a very much better one.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am sure that we all listened with the greatest interest to the account given by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) of his personal experience. We have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about his hallucination that this House or parts of this House are a shambles, but I think that the hon. Member for Salford, West, who has just drawn on his experience, is happier perhaps in his present circumstances than he was in his earlier ones in a slaughterhouse.
I cannot bring any personal experience to this discussion, but it is common ground that we all wish to see an improvement in the present standard of slaughterhouses. This Bill, undoubtedly, will hasten that process. I congratulate the Government on bringing it in so quickly, because some of my correspondents thought that there would be greater delay than there has been.
I think that we ought to see the Bill against the general background that, in the last three or four years, we have all of us eaten a great deal more meat than before and, despite the condition of our slaughterhouses, we all look pretty well on it. I cannot help supposing that this extra amount of meat contributed to the increase in volume and therefore to the reopening of many of the small slaughterhouses. Obviously the question of meat hygiene is extremely important; it is also apparently remarkably detailed. The Food and Agriculture Organisation recently published a volume, which I confess I have not read, but which runs to no fewer than 500 pages, dealing entirely with this one subject.
The new approved standards will enable large modern slaughterhouses to be built by those organisations which wish to put them up, and I should have


thought that it was quite obvious that organisations like the Fatstock Marketing Corporation would want to set up slaughterhouses where they know that they will be in places of strategic importance from the production point of view. Northern Ireland is an example that springs to mind. I should like to see one in my own County of Norfolk because, as a meat producing area, we should like to have increased slaughtering facilities, so that more of our meat might leave Norfolk on a dead weight basis, which would possibly afford us some protection should we again be unfortunate enough to have outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Undoubtedly extra facilities would be very much to our advantage.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he will say something, at a later stage, on the effect of this Bill in making it possible to secure better and more economic terms for the sale or leasing of the Government slaughterhouses, which were built for the Ministry of Food, and which were referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, and whether, when the Bill becomes an Act, those slaughterhouses may be disposed of on more favourable terms. I think that the House will be aware that the Committee of Public Accounts drew our attention to the difficulty of disposing of those slaughterhouses so long as there was some doubt as to the exact basis on which the future slaughterhouse policy would develop.
At present, we are short of good examples of large-scale slaughterhouses and that, undoubtedly, has had the effect of making it rather difficult for that specialised section of our engineering industry which makes slaughterhouse equipment to build up its export trade. Indirectly this Bill should enable that trade to be expanded.
There was an occasion last summer when a Russian delegation came to this country and wished to see various food processing installations. It asked to see slaughterhouses, and one very big maker of slaughterhouse equipment found himself in some degree of embarrassment as to where to find enough suitably modern and well-equipped premises.
The general prospect for the future is encouraging, we are setting very high

standards compared with existing ones. At the other end of the scale, I must confess a similar anxiety to that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) about the position of the small country butcher-retailer who lives and carries on his trade in isolated communities. I hope that these Regulations will not be enforced so, as it were, to drive him out of business purely on grounds of equipment and irrespective of his own efficiency and hygiene.
There is an economic difficulty here. It has been admitted that the turnover of a small country retail butcher is not very large, and it is also admitted that he is very often an extremely skilled craftsman in the art of slaughtering. I think that there is a distinction here between the mass production factory, with the latest equipment in conveyor belts such as the big municipal or private abattoir and the more hand-made efforts of the craftsman operating in his small premises often for a very limited public in the countryside. That man cannot, because of distance, avail himself of the suggestion made by the hon. Member that he should use the facilities of a municipal slaughterhouse. The slaughterhouse may be twenty-five miles away.
Likewise, he is not in a position to group together with other butchers, as could happen in an urban area, and collectively establish a modern slaughterhouse of their own, which they could share. He is in isolation. I am concerned lest he should disappear because he, like the master baker, renders a very important local service, and he is, after all, judged by results. He selects the animal—probably sees the animal growing on a neighbouring farm—buys it himself and, as a craftsman, deals with it. There is the sanction that he himself has to sell the results of his slaughtering over the counter to customers who can, if they wish, go elsewhere to buy their meat.
The standards of the draft Regulations, which I welcome in general, are, none the less, rather more stringent than the model byelaws which were circulated in April, 1956. I think that they may prove to be rather an economic burden to some of those admittedly very few—but because they are few they are not unimportant—small country butchers. The new draft Regulations speak in terms of a great deal of space. They seem to postulate


running water and electricity. Of course, that is all important in a slaughterhouse in a large area and normally would obviously be absolutely essential, but in a remote country place those two desirable amenities may not be available. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will ensure that where these men, by their craft and personal standards, do a good job they will not be pushed out of business merely because the extra expense required to bring their premises up to the standards is simply not justified.
One final point on inspection. It has been my experience to have had rejected parts of animals sent in for slaughter because of sonic disease. Where meat is rejected for human consumption would it not be desirable to stain it? This used to be done, but it was given up because the Order providing for it has now lapsed and, of course, there is no longer any question of meat rationing to justify it. It is a matter for consideration, however, whether meat which has been condemned for human consumption should not be stained as stockfeed potatoes are stained.
In the end, at any rate on the small scale, neither cleanliness nor humanity necessarily go by size or by material equipment. There is a place for craftsmanship and for this personal service to a small, limited number of customers. I have not the slightest doubt, however, that overall we want to improve general standards and this will be one of the most important functions of the local authorities when the Bill becomes law.
Sometimes we speak of conditions in France, as was the case recently in connection with cattle exports. M. Herriot, when President of the National Assembly, visited the city of Lyons and said to the mayor, "Mr. Mayor, show me your abattoir and I will tell you how you administer your town." It is not for me to say how far that remark is true of this country, but the Government have decided that not only slaughterhouses need reorganisation and improvement, but local government also. I congratulate them on bringing both subjects forward for legislation in this Session.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: in following the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) I am afraid I cannot agree with his plea that the country butchers should be allowed

a lower standard of equipment, of hygiene or of anything else than any other butchers in the country. It is amazing that anyone should enter in 1957 a plea that we would be glad to have a lower standard in the country than in any other part of Britain in connection with the food we eat.

Mr. Hill: I have not asked for a lower standard. I have merely asked that the higher physical standards required should not be used to drive such a man out of business, provided he is efficient and his methods are hygienic. There are other ways of doing this.

Mr. Dye: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman mentioned a running water supply and electricity in slaughterhouses. I could have understood his plea if he had said that he wanted running water and electricity in every country district. I want it at any rate, and I will not be satisfied until I get it. It seems to me to be out of date to enter a plea that country butchers should be allowed to carry on with their old-fashioned methods, to the disadvantage of their customers and to the danger of public health.
We all want to see a better standard for slaughterhouses and better handling of the meat and offals from them. As I listened to the closing words of the Minister, when he said that it was hard to be prosaic on such a subject—

Mr. Amory: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dye: —I thought that he was apologising for the Measure he was bringing in, probably being mindful of the words of Hardy that every shepherd proved a traitor to his croft as he led them to the market on the way to the butcher.
The Minister was expected to bring in a Slaughterhouses Bill that would measure up to the needs of the country today. He has not done it, and in that respect he will let down those who are very much concerned about the facilities for slaughtering our cattle. The right hon. Gentleman did not endeavour to enlighten the House in any way on the size of the problem confronting us today. For instance, in how many slaughterhouses is there a lack of the facilities mentioned in the Regulations? How many slaughterhouses have a stunning pen into which the bullocks or cows enter before going into the slaughterhouse In how many do


the conditions still exist that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), where a tow rope is put round the animal's neck and it is dragged into the slaughterhouse and there stunned with the little gun?
What we are concerned about is how long these conditions are to continue before we can say that the country was right in bringing in Regulations to prevent our cattle being exported to countries where they would be handled in an inhuman way? Those who took part in that agitation are now wondering whether they ought not first to have directed their attention to the conditions surrounding the marketing, transporting and slaughtering of cattle in our own country. Those conditions are far from ideal, and it may take many years under this Bill before they are put right.
In that respect I regret the nature of the Bill. The duty is placed upon local authorities. There are hundreds of local authorities, and every little urban and rural district council is an authority dealing with slaughterhouses. Hundreds of them have to engage men qualified as meat inspectors who spend only a few hours a week inspecting meat, and in those areas where the greater slaughterhouses exist and where there is a shortage of meat inspectors the country can say, "Well, as for that shortage, there are many fully qualified men who are nothing like fully employed", because they undertake other duties under that small urban or rural district council. The weakness of the Bill is that as regards the greater part of the area of England, the duty of inspecting and reporting on the conditions of slaughterhouses, and of licensing them, devolves upon these very small rural authorities, and it may be a long time before they are able to bring about improvements.
As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, it is a very costly venture either to modernise an existing slaughterhouse or to build a new one. When it has been decided to do this those concerned do not know, because of the credit squeeze, when or from where they will get the money to do it. I should have thought that it was a matter of such urgency that the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister of the Crown, would have told the House, "This is a matter with which we are deeply concerned. We will arrange a

programme of work so that it shall be done within five years. We will tidy up and modernise the slaughtering of our cattle, sheep and pigs within that specified time, whether there is a shortage of money or anything else, in the interests of the humane treatment of cattle and public health considerations respecting meat." But it is to be left to private individuals, local authorities and various other people who come along with schemes for the improvement of slaughterhouse building. The great weakness of the Bill is that it is not linked to planned development for the provision of modern slaughterhouses.
Under the conditions of the last year or two, with increased production of fatstock in this country, there has developed a greater liking for home-killed meat. In the Eastern counties, at any rate, home-killed meat has driven imported meat completely out of the butcher's shop, for there are shops today which never sell imported meat of any kind because the demand of the customers is for home-killed meat. I believe we can continue to develop the production and sale of greater quantities of home-killed meat. I look forward to the time when, in the rural areas at any rate, we shall find ourselves self-sufficient with home-produced meat.
I view the Bill from a very practical standpoint rather than a political one. I produce fat cattle. I hope this weekend to enjoy a joint from cattle which I have fattened and seen slaughtered in my locality. The carcass has been sold to the local butcher, and I am buying back a piece of it. That represents the practical view that I take of the Bill; we ought to look at it from the producer's point of view, and the consumer's point of view, too. We want to assure the people that the meat supplied to them is not only suitable to their taste and desire, but free from any possibility of contamination or disease. If the Bill were more adequate, I should have been much happier about it.
I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West when he says that all animals should be slaughtered in municipal slaughterhouses. He is thinking entirely in terms of the large city. Thank goodness Britain is not made up of Salfords. More civilised and better proportioned places are to be found in country districts than in Salford.


We heard references to Salford the other day and were touched by them.
There are developments which move across the line of slaughterhouses owned solely by municipalities. There is the development of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, which desires to have its own slaughterhouses, drawing its supplies of cattle from its own members, from the farmers, and selling it to retail butchers. There has been another considerable development in the last few years in the Eastern Counties where the London Central Meat Company, which in the past was solely an importer of meat and a seller of imported meat, has now gone over almost entirely to buying its fatstock from farms in Norfolk, where it now has its own slaughterhouse and supplies its own retail shops. There is no need for there to be anyone except that organisation between the producer and the consumer. That can be a very satisfactory arrangement, and it was in that way that I sold my cattle last week.
I see a weakness in the Bill in relation to this matter. The Minister ought to have taken into consideration the grading of cattle when slaughtered. That should be the big development in the next few years. At present, most fat cattle, sheep and pigs go to market. That represents a wasted journey, and it is a costly one in not only money but damage to the animals during transport. Also, the markets are often far from ideal, although the authorities are trying to improve the conditions.
Is not the ideal to be aimed at that animals should go straight from the farm to the place where they are to be slaughtered and for the meat there to be distributed to the retail shops? I should have thought the Minister would have envisaged that as the best possible, most economical and most efficient development, and that he would have aimed at the type of slaughterhouse which would enable his officials to function most efficiently in grading the animals on a deadweight basis. At the moment, if a country butcher wishes to buy an animal from a neighbouring farmer, the animal has to be carted to market and weighed and graded on its live weight, then it has to go back to the slaughterhouse, and the meat is finally distributed to the shop.
The London Central Meat Company has a registered slaughterhouse where the

grading can be done on a deadweight basis. There are only three slaughterhouses in Norfolk where that can be done. At most of the others it is not possible for it to be done. If we are to have private enterprise development of many small slaughterhouses, either new ones or by way of modernisation of existing ones, it seems to me that some butchers will be at a disadvantage compared with others who have larger and more modern slaughterhouses which can be registered for grading.

Mr. Amory: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member has to say. The kind of slaughterhouse which he has envisaged is very often extremely economic, but under the present Bill the way to development of that kind of slaughterhouse will be entirely open.

Mr. Dye: I am anxious that the Minister should guide development along those lines rather than continue with the Present system where the advantage is weighed in favour of going through the auction market.
I was somewhat confused by the description of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. West of the Christian way of slaughtering a bullock, by holding it by a rope around its neck, and of the Jewish way which he thought was more humane. He was confusing the casting pen of the Jewish method with the stunning pen of the modern English slaughterhouse. He kept referring to the stunning pen for the Jewish method, whereas, as I understand it, the modern Jewish method is by the casting pen, although the animal is not stunned before it is put into the casting pen and no method of stunning is used until its throat has been cut. It is handled inside the casting pen, which has a great advantage over the previous Jewish or Mohammedan methods of slaughter.
I want to know whether we are to move forward in British methods of hastening the stunning of the animal before it enters the slaughterhouse. That is the practice in modern slaughterhouses where the animals merely move along a passage to be stunned at the end of it and rolled through a kind of revolving door into the slaughterhouse. That is the system which we ought to have in all slaughterhouses as quickly as possible, without any excuse about the size of some


slaughterhouses. I also hope that in any Regulations which are issued the modern and latest methods practised by the Jewish people will also be covered.
I believe with many people that if we are to make it compulsory for the initial stunning of an animal to take place before its throat is cut, then that practice should be made to apply in all slaughterhouses of whatever religious faith. Those of us who rear animals and who are also concerned with their humane handling are deeply concerned about that, and I hope that members of the Jewish and the Mohammedan faiths will agree to have stunning first and to its being made compulsory.

7.53 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) enjoys his Sunday dinner. I have had the same sort of experience, but my beast was slaughtered in a small slaughterhouse and I was perfectly content, and, as he can see, I am still perfectly healthy. The answer to the problem lies in a compromise between what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) wanted and what some of us have wanted. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that we have had 5,000 slaughterhouses and now have only 4,000 or 4,500. That is a good and not a bad development.
The hon. Member wants great factory slaughterhouses. There are many advantages in that for the supply of big cities and for the export trade—exports internally and overseas, if we can obtain an export trade in carcase meat. On the other side of the picture is the rural area where a small slaughterhouse run by a local man suits the neighbourhood and where a big factory slaughterhouse would not.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North complained that we had run away from the suggestions of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses on moderate concentration. We shall get moderate concentration in another way, perhaps more moderate than the hon. Member wanted, because the standards of hygiene and the Regulations will compel some small butchers' slaughterhouses to be closed down and those butchers will have to buy their meat on the hoof and

sell it on the hoof in the market. In that way we shall have the moderate concentration which the hon. Member wanted.
I must apologise to my right hon. Friend for not hearing his speech, although I have heard all the others. The Bill is extremely difficult to understand. I remember the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954. I remember the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1955, which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North got out of, but which I did not. They were all complicated, although in the end they were successful bits of legislation.
However, here is a Bill which refers to repealing and amending bits of two of those Acts which themselves were very complicated pieces of legislation. I could read out some of the subsections of the Bill to show how very difficult they are to follow. I appeal to my right hon. Friend when the time comes to have some comprehensive, clear consolidation Measure so that we shall all know where we are and shall not have to spend hours with towels round our heads and volumes of Acts of Parliament at our sides trying to understand this legislation.
Clause 1 (2) refers to the construction Regulations under the Foods and Drugs Act, 1955, and also to construction Regulations under the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954. It has been represented to me that merely to deal with the construction Regulations is not enough and that further provisions of the Food and Drugs Act should be taken into account. For instance, arrangements made for meat inspection should be included in the construction Regulations so that, in spite of the difficulties, the Bill might also deal with meat inspection. Our system in Scotland is different from and better than that in England. I know the difficulties in England, but we ought to look towards the day when the English will be able to reach the Scottish standards.
My next point concerns small local authorities. I can see very great difficulty in finding sites for new slaughterhouses. Normally a new slaughterhouse is put down somewhere near some houses and even if the local urban district council, for example, approves of the idea the planning authority—the county authority—can veto it. The Minister will


have the applicant appealing to him over the refusal of the local authority to grant a licence, but what if the Minister approves over the head of the urban district council and the planning authority then refuses planning permission? That is a very material point. If we are to get on with this improvement of slaughterhouses and the building of new ones, big or small, it is very important that the Minister should have some overriding authority over the planning authority as well as the local authority, because they are not the same people, except in county council and large county borough areas.
I want to make one point in relation to the position in Scotland. The Bill applies to Scotland only in a limited degree, and it applies only where the Factories Acts are applied in England. I am glad that this provision is included in the Bill, because if the Ministry of Labour comes into these matters and it is a United Kingdom service it is obviously right that Scotland should not be left out when improvements are being made and the big slaughterhouses are being made subject to the Factories Acts. It does not matter where the big factories are they should all he treated equally.
I was expecting that the existing legislation in Scotland would have been effective, with that addition, but I recall an answer given by the then Secretary of State for Scotland—now my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart)—on 25th October, 1956. It is a very long answer but, broadly speaking, it says that Parliamentary legislation will be introduced applying the principle embodied in the Bill to Scotland as well as England. I can only hope, in view of that decision, that the Scottish Bill will not be too long delayed, and, if I may dare so to hope, will not be so complicated.
Meanwhile, we are operating under Part II of the 1954 Act, which is still in operation, although Part I has been repealed. Under it there are byelaws, and the Secretary of State has no doubt already approved byelaws for the various local authority areas, and has published model byelaws. If a new Bill is introduced, those byelaws will have either to be amended or wiped out and new Regulations put forward. Under the present system in Scotland—which is a system of byelaws—what is really needed is the

spending of more money by local authorities upon the improvement of their slaughterhouses, rather than an Act of Parliament, because local authorities can make such improvements under their byelaws.
I do not disagree with what hon. Members have been saying about the city slaughterhouses; the same argument is true in Scotland. I should like to see the byelaws more and more operative, and local authorities themselves complying with them. Unlike the case in England, 87 of the slaughterhouses in Scotland are municipal and only 14 or 15 private. Therefore, if there are sinners in Scotland, the local authority slaughterhouses and not the private slaughterhouses are the main ones. I therefore hope that in any legislation for Scotland the Secretary of State will retain powers to see that local authorities carry out their duties.
I am not absolutely clear whether my reading of the Bill is correct. I am not sure whether, in the ease of existing slaughterhouses in England, the Minister retains sufficient power to make local authorities bring their slaughterhouses up to date, as we all want.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, who is a countryman, referred to the question of the concentration of big factory slaughterhouses. In this connection one must remember the problem of the casualty—the cow that breaks its leg or the pig that breaks a limb. As a farmer, I have had personal experience of this. It means that one is left on the farm with an injured animal, which is in pain. If there is a moderate concentration of 500 slaughterhouses, they may be thirty or forty miles apart. A farmer is not equipped to destroy injured animals humanely; if he tries he will probably inflict more cruelty. It is essential to have sufficient slaughterhouses in the country to ensure that an animal can be got into a slaughterhouse of some kind within a very short time, by using the road transport which is available. Ten, fifteen or twenty miles is the outside limit that a casualty should have to go to be put out of its pain.
The average farmer with a pig or sheep can usually take it in the back of his car, runabout, van, or whatever he has, but with cattle that is not possible. He has to hire road transport to take it. If


slaughterhouses are going to be concentrated some farms will be miles away from them and a great deal of cruelty will occur to animals which have accidents.
For that reason I believe that it would be much more humane if we had a lesser degree of moderate concentration than the hon. Member for Sunderland, North wants. I think that the Government have struck the right balance in encouraging private enterprise, both big and small, and I believe that we have the promise of better and more hygienic conditions for the meat to be handled, slaughtered and sold to the public.

8.8 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Had the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) had the good fortune to be present while his right hon. Friend the Minister was speaking he would have agreed with me that the Minister presented a difficult and complicated subject with the greatest possible clarity. For that I am grateful to him. I came here this evening, having read the Bill, the White Papers and some of the background, not really quite sure about the position.
I must warn the Minister that some local authorities are unhappy about one or two of the provisions of the Bill. I am sure that he is fully aware of that. My own local authority, the City of Stoke-on-Trent, wrote to me, and I discussed the matter with the town clerk in the House last night. He told me that the Council has certain reservations. It is in agreement with the City of Birmingham, and it has a similar reservation.
A resolution of the Health Committee of the Stoke-on-Trent City Council, similar to one approved by the Birmingham City Council, was worded in this way:
This Committee having long favoured the policy of moderate concentration in the standards of slaughtering and inspection of meat, regard the change of policy as outlined in the White Paper of May, 1956, as a retrograde step and fear that the policy set out in paragraph 18"—
that is the obnoxious paragraph to them—
of the White Paper will be inimical to the interests of the consumer and may have serious effects on the slaughtering and marketing facilities provided by local authorities.

I assume, of course, that this is a reference to local authorities who have their own abattoirs, which they man themselves and inspect by their own inspectors, in which people from other authorities are allowed to participate and to which any butcher can send his cattle.
The wording of paragraph 18 is to be found on the back page of Cmd. 9761, and it is as follows:
Repeal of Local Authorities' power to refuse licences in certain circumstances. The power of local authorities to determine that no further licences shall be granted on the ground that there is an adequacy of existing private slaughterhouses will be repealed.
Possibly the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary in winding up the debate tonight, will be able to give us some assurances about this. We shall certainly need to raise the matter in Committee. May I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary? If the local authority is satisfied that there are already enough private slaughterhouses in the area, is it not reasonable to accept its word on the subject? Local authorities are very sensitive to public opinion and public pressure. Will they deny their own citizens an opportunity to have cattle slaughtered in a proper fashion? I can see no reason not to trust the local authorities. I know that in paragraph 17 of the White Paper the Minister has very wisely made it possible for local authorities operating their own slaughterhouses to refuse to grant additional licences, with the proviso that the Minister can over-rule them. As far as it goes, that is satisfactory, but we cannot understand the reason for paragraph 18 and we should like an explanation.
This is a small Bill, but it affects very many people—many local authorities, many workers and certainly very many animals. In 1933, when a Report was made to the House by the Economic Advisory Council's Committee on The Slaughtering of Livestock, the number of animals slaughtered, outside bacon factories, was given as 9½ million a year. I do not know what the figure is today, but I assume that it is very similar. We can therefore think in terms of 10 million animals which are affected by the Bill and for whom we must have a care. We must see that if they are slaughtered, they are slaughtered as humanely as possible; that the premises are completely suitable; that the workers involved are able to


work under decent conditions and are under no specific risk; that the meat is not contaminated; and, above all, that inspection is such that we are not trapped into eating diseased meat.
I am sure that those premises will meet with agreement from every hon. Member, but I note that the Report to which I have just referred—going back to 1933—gives views about private slaughterhouses which do not contain the sentimental expression of opinion about the craftsman whose craft must not be allowed to die. Instead, we read a rather brutal description. The Committee felt that they were out of order in mentioning it, and they put it like this:
Though it does not fall strictly within our terms of reference, we wish to record the fact that we have received a considerable volume of evidence to the effect that meat inspection in private slaughterhouses in England and Wales is not by any means satisfactory.
That was in 1933. The Committee says why. I will not read its reasons at length because I can paraphrase them. The reasons are that sometimes the meat is not inspected at all—there are not enough inspectors—and, even when inspectors are available, they tend to have many other duties to perform; that it is expensive to have inspectors and to pay them; that these local authorities are small and cannot keep inspectors standing by purely for meat inspection; that they therefore have other jobs, too, and are not always available for meat inspection.
There is, of course, a great difference between this type of meat inspection and the type which we see in my own local authority, where the slaughterhouse is substantial in size and where the inspectors are present, on the spot, all the time. It is not possible for anything to happen in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle). Nobody can trim away from the inside of the ribs of the carcase the end product of tuberculosis to make the meat appear fit for human consumption, so that when the meat inspector arrives to inspect it, possibly in bad light and possibly late at night, he will be deceived, In the circumstances which I am describing for a good slaughterhouse that is quite impossible.
I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) should look more carefully at the slaughterhouses in his own constituency before he gives us the im-

pression, with such pride, that it is impossible for anything to go wrong in his county. I must admit that I have not the same pride when I speak about the County of Staffordshire, because I know that in North Staffordshire, in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, before the war we suffered from animals being slaughtered in small abattoirs outside the city, the meat being brought in regularly either during the night or in the early hours of the morning and never being inspected; or, if it were inspected, it had first been trimmed to deceive the tired inspector, if there were an inspector at all. The meat was then sold at a low price and our poor people bought diseased meat in the markets in those days. That was commonplace, and I am ashamed to admit that it happened, but it happened in many parts of the country and to deny it is stupid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West did not, I hope, mind my interrupting him when he was speaking about the method of ritual killing by which an animal is put into a casting pen, which rotates; the animal is turned over and its throat is then cut. I learned my physiology from Professor Lovatt Evans, a great teacher of physiology at Leeds in my time, who later came to one of the great universities and medical schools in London, and I note that recently he has expressed his view about this method of slaughter. His view was that it is not cruel at all and that the animal does not suffer. I read physiology extensively myself and took an honours degree, and I know a little about it, but I know much more about it because as a medical man I have seen one or two cases of cut throat in human beings. When these human beings recover they are ready to talk to the doctor and can tell him whether it hurt or not. The animal cannot.
The facts are these. If one can avoid terror in the animal—no dragging, no tripping, no casting by the old, bad methods—step forward, and, with one cut with a very large razor sever both carotid arteries, the animal is probably quite unconscious by the time one counts three—in three seconds. What has happened in that time is clear. For anyone who sees it it looks terrifying and upsetting, but the sudden rush of blood from two severed carotid arteries means that before


one can count three the animal is deeply unconscious. The convulsions occur afterwards, but the animal feels nothing of them at all.
That can be shown in two ways. I must not say too much here lest someone takes my advice, but provided that he did it under test conditions and had somebody there to cut him down, a man could hang himself—without a drop, of course, and, therefore, without breaking his neck; ordinary hanging means a compression on the carotid arteries so that the brain is starved of blood flowing from them—and he would find that it does not take many seconds before swooning occurs, that there is no pain from the compression at all, and that the convulsions occurring afterwards occur in unconsciousness. Anybody who has ever been cut down and revived would say that.
There is another fragment of evidence, and it derives from garotting. The method of garotting is to press the carotid arteries against the transverse processes that come out in the cervical part of the spinal column. One approaches the victim from behind, and presses one's fingers against the carotid arteries. It was a method commonly used when robbing people 100 years ago in such industrial areas as Salford and the Potteries. Arnold Bennett has described it as occurring at midday in Burslem when he was a boy. Approached like that and held like that, the victim fell unconscious in two seconds, his wallet was taken and the garotter slipped round the corner. That, again, shows that unconsciousness can be produced very quickly by shutting off the blood supply of the carotid arteries.
I have quoted these cases because I think that it is very doubtful that the animal feels pain when the blood supply is cut off by a sharp, large razor in this way.
The last piece of evidence that enters my mind is the specific case of an 18-year-old patient of mine who cut his throat. He did it very badly in that he cut it in front—and here I do not want to say too much lest I give away too many secrets of my profession and, perhaps, encourage someone to practise on himself. This patient cut right through his wind pipe, and through the muscles and so on. He did not cut his carotid

arteries and jugular veins, or the deep sympathetic nerves behind them.
It must have been fifteen minutes before I got to him. He was sitting there, and was not very comfortable, I admit. I was a little shocked, but I covered him up, held the parts together, stuck them together until the ambulance came, and took him to hospital. An extensive repair was done in hospital, and he lived for about 20 years longer. Then, as he had a habit of doing these things, he found another and more successful way, and left this life.
I discussed this matter very carefully with him, and he told me that only after he came out of the anaesthetic following the operation for repair did he feel any discomfort, soreness or irritation. There is only one thing I would say to militate against that fragment of evidence, and I must say it. He was a schizophrenic and, perhaps, was exaggerating his feelings, or lack of them.
When we cut ourselves with the razor when shaving, it is not painful. We see the blood before we feel anything, so let us not assume—and here I speak purely as a physiologist—that when one cuts an animal's throat, if it has been led carefully into the pen and rotated, one is being brutal to it. Let us face the facts as they really are.
Lastly, I say this to the Minister who, very courteously, is still waiting here? I would not have blamed him if, during this gruesome perusal, he had gone out. The local authorities and everyone at all interested in this subject want, as he wants and as we all want, clean meat guaranteed free from disease, and workers who will themselves be protected and cared for. We want the thing to look clean as well as to be clean, and we do not want tens of thousands of abattoirs. Already, perhaps, 4,500 of them may well be too many, and it may well be that if the Minister's ultimate aims are achieved there will, in a few years, be fewer of them. If I thought that I would support the Bill but, in any case, I will not vote against it.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I had not intended, earlier in the day, to intervene in this debate because, as far as I can see unless one were equipped with a very intimate knowledge of many slaughterhouses one would not


be in a position to contribute more than those who are so intimately acquainted. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) who, unfortunately, has a "bee in his bonnet" about this matter—

Mr. Royle: Oh, no.

Mr. Janner: Not one "bee in his bonnet," but several "bees in his bonnet"—speak as he did on a Bill that, presumably, does not attempt to interfere with the religious rites of a substantial section of the community. I say "presumably", because I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at Clause 7, although, as far as I can see, it does not interfere with the exemptions for ritual slaughter contained in the 1933 Act.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West chose to bring in a subject which to many religious people in this country—and, indeed, throughout the world—is of considerable importance. It is important not only from that point of view that it is a religious injunction. It is a religious injunction which is observed not only because it is a religious injunction, but because Jewish people, Jewish traditions, and the Jewish religion have always regarded this form of slaughter as being the most humane, and it is not correct that my hon. Friend—in fact, two of my hon. Friends—should come to the conclusion that it is otherwise.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who is himself a physiologist and a doctor. He supports the views of other eminent physiologists in this matter. Hundreds of physiologists have made categorical statements that there is no inhumanity involved in the Jewish method of slaughter and as recently as a year ago the late Lord Horder confirmed what he had already stated on a number of occasions in categorical terms, that it was not inhumane.
Of course, every form of slaughter has some form of inhumanity about it, I suppose, but this is a matter about which I am thoroughly convinced; otherwise. I would not be speaking as I am speaking now. I am quite convinced that the severance of the carotid artery in itself means almost instantaneous unconsciousness and death. Furthermore, investigations

have recently been made in a university in America and it was stated that this was as humane a method as any existing.
When one attacks or criticises something which is held to be a matter of faith by religious people such as Jews and Mohammedans, one must surely be practically 100 per cent. certain of one's facts. The Jewish community has sufficient to put up with from anti-semites. Heaven for-fend that I should suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West is in that category, but he must be aware that such people are just waiting for some suggestion of this kind in order to instigate hatreds against, and attacks on, Jewish people.
We know that when Hitler was attacking and killing, when he and his followers ultimately killed 6 million people, he was advocating that schechita, the Jewish method of slaughter, should be dispensed with. We in this House know that that is not the cause when we are discussing this matter here, but I am sure hon. Members will appreciate what a delicate question they are dealing with. I trust that they understand that we who are Jewish are particularly anxious about our humane ideals.
For thousands of years this method of cutting has been practised, and it was and is the most humane in the world. Of that there can be no question. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has already indicated that the act of cutting with the sharp knife itself immediately creates unconsciousness, and consequently, as stunning is not permitted, according to the religious authorities of the Jewish community, and as it makes no contribution towards the removal of any inhumanity, according to physiologists, we should think very hard before attempting to interfere with a humane method already in existence for so long.
I came into this House in 1931. In 1933, I was a Member of the Committee that dealt with the Slaughter of Animals Act. At that time, an Amendment was put down with a view to removing the exemption granted in the case of the Jewish and Mohammedan method of slaughter. I spoke to Mr. Wise, who was then Member for one of the Birmingham constituencies, whose name headed the list of those who wished to remove the exemption. I asked him whether he had


seen the Jewish method in practice, and he admitted that he had not. At my invitation, he went to see it, and on coming back, he expressed himself in words very similar to those used by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) last year in the House. He did not use these words exactly, but the words I am about to quote from what was said last year are a paraphrase of his.
The hon. Member for Solihull said:
I have been to a slaughterhouse this morning and I have seen animals slaughtered by the Jewish method. I am absolutely convinced that there is no cruelty whatsoever attached to it.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 440.]
That reflected, in 1956, what was said in 1933 by an hon. Member who had the courtesy to see the method in operation.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West for having referred to the casting pen method in the way he did. He himself said that the main element of cruelty, the thing people can object to, is not so much in the slaughtering itself but in the bringing of the animal to slaughter. I do not know whether the casting pen is the same thing as the stunning pen; I gather from my hon. Friend that it is practically the same. It has been admitted by those that have seen it that the casting pen removes fear from the animal. The result is that when the actual operation of cutting the throat takes place, the animal, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, has no pain or practically no pain.
I do not desire to speak for very long on this issue, as other hon. Members wish to speak, and I do not want to go into the details of the arguments which have been used from time to time. I appeal to my hon. Friends to realise what is the real nature of the contention that they are introducing. These objections are really wholly unjustified. They are upsetting people who themselves are the keenest in the world to be humane. They are upsetting religious people; the religious heads of the Jewish community have made it absolutely clear that what is suggested by them cannot be done. They are lending force to a myth, for myth it is, that the presence of a considerable quantity of blood in itself indicates pain.
My hon. Friend spoke about the reflex action. I have seen, as I am sure my

hon. Friend has been, a side of beef, hanging up and quivering; after it has been cut and hung up, one can see that movement. One can see a chicken run after its head has been cut off. These are things which physiologists can explain, but there is certainly no pain attached to them; the quivering indicates no pain and the running of the chicken after its head is off indicates no pain.
I know that the Minister does not intend anything to detract from the position as it exists, but we should be careful that neither the Bill itself nor any part of it can be interpreted as meaning what my hon. Friends are saying. At the same time, it should be made clear to those who are concerned for the humane treatment of animals that the Jewish community is not inhumane in this matter. On the contrary, the method used is a method which has been practised for thousands of years, a method more humane than any other practised during those centuries. Pictures showing a great deal of blood are no indication that pain is created.
I do not think that I should give at this moment further quotations, but, if at any stage, the matter is raised again I hope that the Minister will assist those of us who know what the position is to remove the doubts remaining in the minds of hon. Members.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. North-West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) will excuse me if I do not follow them in the particular line of argument which they introduced. I ought to say that the pamphlet which was published last year and circulated to hon. Members by the University Federation of Animal Welfare suggested that the period during which an animal might feel pain was 10 to 12 seconds. I am not a physiologist, and beyond that I do not know. The Federation itself was supporting the Jewish community, but that was a reasoned statement which it put forward.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I welcome the Bill, although I feel that it is a limited advance towards the aim which most of us have in mind. We are today in the twentieth century,


and I hope that in spite of hydrogen bombs, and so on, we are rising to a greater standard of civilisation than we have yet known. The sacrifice of animals to feed human beings seems to be a lamentable necessity. All of us agree that this horrible thing must be done as humanely as possible.
It is for that reason that I am sorry that the present Minister of Agriculture—whom we all recognise to be a very humane man—should be piloting through the House of Commons a Bill which maintains the present high number of slaughterhouses at about 4,500 compared with 500 to 600 when the 1954 Bill was introduced. We hope that that number will be reduced and reduced quickly.
If I am correct, I thought the Minister indicated that he hoped that this Bill would promote an even further concentration of slaughterhouses. I feel that the smaller slaughterhouses, which were introduced and many of which were revived under the 1954 Act, are not the proper sized units where we shall obtain as humane slaughter as is possible in this twentieth century. It therefore seems to me that the trend must be towards larger units which can be properly constructed, properly equipped, and properly manned. In that way the meat inspectors will be enabled to do their job properly. There is a shortage of inspectors. Theirs is a distasteful job—a job requiring training, skill and many years of study. Therefore, we ought to pay the inspectors well, and we ought not to expect of them long hours of duty, any more than we should of the slaughtermen. It seems to me that there is now a shortage of these inspectors and that much meat—I do not say most of it, but a considerable quantity is—being sold which has not been inspected by a meat inspector.
We welcome the better standards of accommodation which will be provided as a consequence of the Bill. They cannot come too quickly.
I would now pay a tribute to the Borough Council of Penzance in Cornwall, although Penzance is not in my constituency but in the next one, St. Ives. Penzance Council has taken a very progressive and forward view, yet in Penzance is one of the most awful slaughterhouses in the Kingdom, and it is situated within fifty yards of the centre of the town. Penzance is not to blame. For

more than a generation it has been trying to get a better slaughterhouse. Yet still there is that dreadful place in the middle of the town. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough two or three months ago to receive a deputation from the Penzance Borough Council and the Kerrier Rural District Council. Part of that district is in my own constituency. He received us very sympathetically, and we are grateful to him for that.
I would stress, as Penzance has stressed, that the siting of slaughterhouses is most important. Power over siting rests with the county planning authorities, but it seems as though the system is not working properly, and, therefore, I support the view of the Penzance Borough Council that the smaller local authorities themselves should have power over the siting of slaughterhouses.
In recent years I have sent to various Ministers instances of slaughterhouses being sited in the wrong places. A residential area, whether it is a middle-class area or a council housing estate or any other sort, is the wrong place for a slaughterhouse. In such an area there will be some people who are of highly strung character and whose nervous condition will be made worse by the very proximity of a slaughterhouse. Week after week we read in the newspapers of instances of animals becoming demented on their way to the slaughterhouses in the middle of our towns.
In Scotland, I understand, no compensation is paid when a slaughterhouse is closed or becomes redundant. I hope that the Bill will not cause a heavy burden of compensation to be imposed upon the local authorities when the time comes for the closure of slaughterhouses which are not to be maintained.
I understand that the Regulations will provide for a stunning pen in every slaughterhouse except where that is impracticable. I suggest that if a slaughterhouse is of inadequate size to permit of a stunning pen it should not be used for the slaughter of bullocks.
Some of these matters are, perhaps, Committee points, but I come to another I have been asked to raise and I should like the Minister to consider it as soon as possible. It is that there should be a constant supply of hot water in the


slaughterhouse. I hope that he will not allow any water but drinking water to be used for any purpose whatever.
I regard the Bill as only a stop-gap. The Fat Stock Marketing Corporation came in to save the Government and the country in 1954 when all controls were suddenly removed, and it has undoubtedly a part to play in any good scheme in the future. This Measure is a small step forward. I am sure that the House will do what it can in Committee to improve it and that we shall soon move forward to a time when no slaughterhouse in the land will cause any of us a sense of shame.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: The attitude of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) was unfortunate, because his speech was more or less on the line that every butcher should have his own slaughterhouse. We know from our experience during the war how necessary it was to have a concentration of slaughterhouses and we have learned the value of a certain amount of concentration since the end of the war.
Whilst we on this side of the House welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction in some respects, it does not provide overall cover for the British Isles. Scotland is left out and only England and Wales figure in it at present. The proposed Regulations governing construction and standards of hygiene are good, and we are glad that the power of local authorities to issue licences is to be retained. It appears also that there will be power under the Bill to close down slaughterhouses which are not required.
Only a short time ago it was indicated very clearly in the House that it was the Government's intention to reduce considerably the number of these small slaughterhouses. They are the ones in which frequently proper care is not taken of things and craftsmen are not employed on the job. It is important that the work should be done not by part-time slaughter-men or semi-skilled people but by real craftsmen such as are employed at the central abattoirs in our large cities.
It appears that the Bill is to achieve modernisation in two stages and that private traders are to have power to set up their own new slaughterhouses. This has been the bone of contention in most

of the speeches from this side of the House. There is great fear of this development, because meat is delivered in ninety-nine homes out of a hundred and this slaughtering should not be done in a higgledy-piggledy way in any street. It must be carried out, for the moment, by means of a mild form of concentration and, I hope, by full concentration in the years ahead. It is also provided in the Bill that the conditions laid down are met. I think that these matters are very important, and I hope that they will be reinforced when the need arises, because it is extremely important to do everything that we can to safeguard the interests of the people.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Gainsborough has returned to the Chamber and I will repeat my chief criticism of the speech which he made earlier when he spoke against moderate concentration and seemed to favour slaughterhouses attached to almost every butcher's shop. Of course, the hon. Member is a farmer and was therefore batting on his own wicket, and I suppose we must excuse him for doing that.
We on this side of the House are glad to have an extension of this kind of legislation, but we are dissatisfied because we consider that it does not provide for sufficient construction and proper safeguards for hygiene. It does not enable the development of a sufficient number of craftsmen to do this job and we consider that there will not be sufficient oversight by the inspectorate because of the development which is foreshadowed in the Bill.
If the Minister had brought in a Bill which was going to do this job in a big way, and not in the little way that he proposes, we would have been very happy about it. This is a step forward and we have often appreciated what the Minister has done in other fields. I think that the Bill must eventually bring us to what we want to get, which is proper reorganisation of the killing and distribution of meat under satisfactory conditions for the whole of the people.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: When the Minister opened this debate he told us with a great deal of frankness that this was a complicated Bill. We can all agree with him on that. We have had a very helpful debate, which the Minister


commenced with a very interesting speech and I think that all of us on this side of the House are in agreement with the general intention of the Bill. We want an improvement in the slaughterhouses of this country, but we think that the Bill does not go far enough and quickly enough in that direction.
Speeches have been made from the other side of the House putting forward a number of points of view. I think that very few of us on this side will be in agreement with the speech made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). We do not want to see a return to the chaotic pre-war conditions, when there were thousands of slaughterhouses in all parts of the country, without any proper supervision and in which very primitive methods were in many cases used.
We want a development of the supervision of slaughterhouses and greater concentration. To follow the advice of the hon. Member for Gainsborough would lead us away from that ideal. We do not want to have a slaughterhouse attached to every butcher's shop. We want slaughterhouses of an efficient size where proper supervision can be made effective. The purpose of a slaughterhouse should be to provide good, clean meat for the consumer. I am speaking in this debate on behalf of 12 million consumers who belong to Co-operative societies, and they have a great interest in the provision of good clean meat. Co-operative societies generally are very keen that the standards of slaughterhouses should be improved. So we give general support to the object of this Bill, although we may want to make one or two suggestions on points of detail.
We certainly do not want to return to the pre-war days with some 12,000 slaughterhouses in all parts of the country without proper supervision. We want to be able to reconcile the need for national standards with the operation of slaughterhouses by the interests concerned. We appreciate the object of the Bill in laying down standards. We think that it is absolutely right that they should be laid down and that they should be maintained.
The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses was a good one in some respects, although the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in

this connection are correct. The Committee could have been drawn from a wider range of interests than it was.
We want to see proper standards applied in the slaughterhouses for hygienic reasons. This is particularly important for consumers who want to be able to buy meat in their butcher's shop knowing that it is clean and wholesome. There are many shops which are trying to make a quick profit by selling inferior meat, sometimes at a low price, misleading the consumer, and in some cases they are selling meat which should not be sold to the general public. Sometimes that meat comes from slaughterhouses which are not subject to proper supervision. We in the Co-operative movement want to avoid that state of affairs.
We also welcome the Clauses in the Bill relating to conditions of employment. We are glad that the Minister is proposing to make Regulations for the safety of the workers, and we certainly hope that local authorities will use to the full the powers that will be given to them. Workers in slaughterhouses do not have an easy job, and it is better that the slaughterhouse should be of such a size that the workers can be properly skilled and are doing a full-time job, not doing an odd job on the side.
The third thing which should be emphasised as one of the results of the Bill is a point that has been brought out in several speeches from this side of the House, the humane killing of animals. It is good that this Bill will enable humane killing to be made certain, and that there will be an opportunity for the Minister to persuade slaughterhouses to adopt new methods of killing where these have been shown to be effective.
I will say something about the siting of slaughterhouses because it is important that they should be put in the right places. This is not the case in many towns and cities, and citizens are subject to a great deal of nuisance because, at some time in the past, the slaughterhouses have been put in the wrong place or the city has grown up around them. In the course of time more powers ought to be provided to enable authorities to make sure that slaughterhouses are not only efficient, but are established in the right places.
I am sorry that more consideration is not being given to by-products factories.


These are sometimes a great nuisance to those who live near or around them. Some of my constituents unfortunately live near such a factory, and I went to see it some time ago. It really is a shocking place. On a hot summer's day the smell in the vicinity is simply awful. The waste products from the factory are disposed of on waste ground across the road near a school, and the children there are subjected to great irritation because on hot days the windows have to be closed. I have seen flies almost as large as my thumb which have been breeding on that filthy land.
It would be an advantage if local authorities could be given more powers to supervise the operations of such factories. I welcome the point made on this subject in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, and particularly the point that such factories should be established by or near slaughterhouses, which would mean efficient treatment of the by-products, and would obviate a great deal of unhygienic handling of by-products for they would not have to be transported.
We had a very interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who is one of the most experienced men on this subject. I found myself very much in agreement with some of the things he said. Although I appreciated the compliment which he paid the Co-operative movement in respect of the way in which it runs its abattoirs, I cannot accept his suggestion that Co-operative slaughterhouses should be handed over to municipalities. Surely, what we want is efficient handling of cattle, humane methods of killing and really hygienic conditions, and, as consumers' organisations, Co-operative societies are fully entitled to carry out this job for themselves.
I wish to put three points to my hon. Friend. First, Co-operative societies being organisations of consumers, it is not in their interests to have unhygienic methods of handling meat. Indeed, it is wholly in their interests to have the highest standards. Co-operative societies have always laid down the very highest possible standards for the handling of all food products because, as organisations of consumers, they are interested not in merely making a surplus out of the handling of food but

in giving the most hygienic service possible to their members. Thus, no criticism can be made about unhygienic methods of handling in Co-operative abattoirs because there is no possible incentive for Co-operative societies to use inefficient and unhygienic methods. This would not be in the interests of consumers, who belong to the societies.
Co-operative societies running slaughterhouses are large enough to run them efficiently, and I think that that is what my hon. Friend wants. He wants larger slaughterhouses so that there can be humane killing and efficient handling of cattle and I think that he will agree that Co-operative societies can do that because they are large enough and have the resources to do it. They also have the means of disposing of the by-products, which is an important point. If there were the profusion of slaughterhouses which the hon. Member for Gainsborough and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) advocated, there would not be efficient and hygienic handling of by-products.
The third point is that Co-operative societies' abattoirs have an interest in the conditions of employees and very much welcome the suggestions in the Bill for safeguarding the conditions of employees. Conditions are safeguarded with the full co-operation of the trade unions concerned. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that those three points show that Co-operative societies have high standards and I cannot see why he should say that municipalities should take over their slaughterhouses. They are doing an efficient job well up to the standards which he has laid down. Why should they be transferred to municipal ownership?

Mr. Royle: I am suggesting that they could easily make a gesture. We are asking private butchers to take this line and to go into a pool, and I do not think that it is unfair to ask Co-operative societies to do the same thing.

Mr. Stonehouse: If the job is being done efficiently by the Co-operative societies on behalf of the consumers, there is no reason why Co-operative societies' slaughterhouses should be transferred to municipalities, although I fully agree that municipalities must have effective methods of supervision and power to exercise supervision to keep slaughterhouse conditions up to scratch.
I want to say how much we appreciate the fact that the Bill has been brought forward so early in the Session. We give it a general welcome because we are anxious, as I believe all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are anxious, to see that we move along the road towards having proper supervision of slaughterhouses and the best possible conditions for the handling of meat.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: The Minister certainly cannot complain of a lack of expert advice from both sides of the House, but, as the debate has gone, predominantly from this side. We have had experts in almost every aspect of the subject. We have had experts in slaughterhouses themselves, farming and expert physiologists and, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, at one time I was in imminent danger myself. I can assure him that I have no desire to carry out any experiments of the kind he so tactfully suggested. I fear that I must leave that to someone else.
In spite of the very wide variety of backgrounds from which hon. Members spoke, it was very clear that they were united in their general feelings about the Bill, to some extent about its inadequacies and also in their anxieties about what is now called moderate concentration. I want rather to put to the right hon. Gentleman the point of view of those who are especially interested in the health aspect of the matter.
I am a little disappointed that there is no one here from the Ministry of Health, because I regard this as a health matter in the main, although not exclusively. I very much hope that, even if we do not have the Minister of Health here today, we shall have either him or the Parliamentary Secretary in Standing Committee, when the matter is dealt with in greater detail. It would be worth the Minister's while to think about a health matter for a change and to pull himself away from his negotiations with Whitley Councils for a moment or two.
Quite seriously, I believe that we are likely to make far greater advances in health by giving more attention to this kind of public health matter than to conditions in our hospitals, badly as they need attention. It is one of the problems of our time that we need to regard health

as much more closely a matter of daily concern, when we examine the whole welfare and public organisation fields. I therefore make no apology for speaking more particularly about the health aspect of this matter.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) declared his interest—the very honourable one of being an honorary vice-president of the Meat Traders' Federation. Since he has set the example I suppose that I had better follow suit and say that I am an honorary vice-president of the Public Health Inspectors' Association. But I make no personal claim to the expertise of a public health inspector. I happen to have fairly regular contacts with those who do, however, and I have had the opportunity of examining with some care the proceedings of their annual conference, and some of the expert papers which were read and discussed there in connection with this very important matter, and were put before the conference by some very eminent persons, including Dr. Hobbs, of the Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale. I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with her and also with several expert public health inspectors who are in regular daily contact with the whole question.
They have undoubtedly been very anxious about it. Dr. Hobbs, for example, pointed out what a high proportion of the cases of food poisoning arise from meat products, and how many of those cases can be tracked back to the slaughterhouses. This is a very important matter. Some hon. Members opposite have been cheerfully advertising their own good health in spite of having eaten meat that had been slaughtered in small slaughterhouses. They may have been lucky; I do not know. I do not want to put doubts into their minds by suggesting that some dreadful disesaes are in preparation for them, but I would point out that this is a very serious matter.
We certainly cannot he at all complacent about the extent of food poisoning. There is a shocking amount of it in this country as compared with other civilised countries. Certainly, up to twelve months ago the incidence has been steadily rising. It has been a very anxious problem for all who are interested in public health. I am merely anxious to suggest that there is a very important reason why we should try to get far better


conditions established in our slaughterhouses.
I now turn to some of the points which public health inspectors have raised when this matter has been discussed with them. They have pointed to some very pertinent matters, concerning the question of the spread of slaughterhouses today. Perhaps I may read from a Paper submitted by Mr. S. Cayton, Chief Public Health Inspector of West Bromwich:
Since the decontrol of meat we have returned to an uneconomic system in which inspectors are required to be present at the slaughter of food animals in any number of premises scattered over the district of a local authority.
Anyone who knows the people who have to do this job knows their difficulties and their complaints about it and knows how difficult, indeed impossible in many cases, it is for them to be present when they should be present. Mr. Cayton continues:
This is in exchange for a system in which livestock was brought to a limited number of premises in which inspectors were stationed more or less permanently.
From the health point of view this is vital. Here we have some of the experts, completely independent people, who are concerned with the laboratory end of the work, trying to track down the problem of food infection and food poisoning which occurs, and they are satisfied that this is the source of much of our present difficulty. In face of that kind of evidence, it is surely unfortunate that we have pressure for the retention of premises where it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide the health standards which most of us feel are essential and where inspection cannot be guaranteed to be regularly available.
Many very well qualified people assure us that today far too much meat is being sold which has not been inspected and far too much meat which is not satisfactory is being used in all kinds of processes and meat foods. I believe that we could make a considerable advance in our health standards if we were prepared to tackle the problem vigorously.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that they have no intention of opposing the passage of the Bill, taking the view that half a loaf is better than no bread, but I want to give some feeling of urgency, from a health point of view, of the need for getting on with the job. I did not feel that sense of urgency in speeches

of hon. Members opposite, because they seemed so anxious to retain premises which, no doubt on personal grounds, were admirable from their point of view but against the weight of evidence as to the dangers which we still face and the shocking conditions which we must admit that we allow to continue by comparison with conditions in many other countries. We certainly cannot be proud of our position.
I do not want to exaggerate this sense of complacency, because I know the Minister's interest in the subject, but added to a sense of complacency there is the further hampering factor which has been introduced—the question of the availability of finance. It is no use our talking about all these things unless the resources are to be made available and unless it is to be possible for these new slaughterhouses to be built.
In discussions with health inspectors I find that they are very worried lest we are to go in for the second, third or fourth best by trying slightly to improve shockingly bad premises which ought to be closed down straight away. They argue very strongly that we cannot hope to tackle the health problems adequately unless we are prepared to pull down such premises, and they say that we shall be putting ourselves in a dangerous position if we take what appears to be the easy course of allowing modest and minor alterations to be made in premises which are bad.
This publication of the papers submitted to the Conference of the Association of Public Health Inspectors contains illustrations of the kind of premises—back-street, back-yard premises—that we still tolerate. I do not for a moment suggest that hon. Members opposite want to tolerate such premises, but I do suggest that if we are to tackle them we have to show a great deal greater sense of urgency from the health point of view.
It is another example of the tragedy of the Government's general financial policy, because here is another productive way of using a limited amount of our resources which, apparently, is being cast away without proper consideration of its importance to the community; cast away amongst a great mass of other desirable things as a result of this blind shutdown on financial resources, the blind squeeze that is taking place.
It is not only those who are interested, in the general sense, in food matters; not only the farmers or those who have had practical experience of many of these things who are concerned about this Measure. There are many of us who feel that, above all else, this is a health matter, and that, for the sake of the health of the country, we should give it a much higher priority than it appears to me, from the discussions that I have heard, the Government are likely to give it.

9.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am sure that everyone will agree that we have had a very useful debate on this very important Measure. A large number of points have been put forward, some of which I shall try to deal with now, while others will be more suitable for discussion in Committee.
I would say that, by and large, we have had support for the Bill although, perhaps, in this context, to say that it has received from the other side of the House a "moderate" degree of approval would be the most suitable way of putting it. I know that hon. Members opposite would rather that the Bill brought about a higher degree of concentration. I quite understand that; it is the path they all wish to follow. But it seems to me that they wish to bring about concentration by order, by planning. I would suggest that the ultimate result of what we seek will be, certainly, not so great a concentration as hon. Members opposite suppose but a measure of concentration achieved by the raising of standards.
We are setting standards, and whatever hon. Members opposite may say about their being inadequate those standards are considerably higher than the existing ones. Where there are really bad or really small slaughterhouses it will not be sufficiently attractive for the operators to bring the premises up to those standards; but, where the need and the throughput are sufficient, there will clearly be the desire to raise the standards to those set. That is the practical way of approach, and we hope and believe that we shall in time achieve the results that have been spoken about, though by rather different means.
Here I should like to enter a plea against what seems to be a rather exaggerated view held by some hon. Members opposite. I do not believe that because a slaughterhouse is small it is necessarily bad. It may well be true of many—I realise the difficulties of inspection and the problems about by-products and the rest—but in many of the very rural areas the conditions are as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball)—and, as a Lincolnshire Member, I, too, must stand for some of the things he said.
One should not condemn all slaughterhouses merely because they are small. There is a genuine attempt on the part of many of those who operate them to do so in as healthy and clean a way as any other. Last weekend I was in my constituency, and I want into a small village slaughterhouse where I was very favourably impressed not only by the present standard but by the concern which the occupier had for bringing the standard of the premises up to the recommended level. Indeed, the copy of the recommended minimum standards which I have here was thrust into my hand on that occasion as I did not happen to have a copy with me at the time. I am aware of the problems of these local butchers, and I am glad to know that they are approaching them in this fashion.
In anything that I am saying I do not want it to be thought that I am speaking against the principle of large slaughterhouses. Of course, in many cases it is right to have a large slaughterhouse. I am merely seeking to set a balance, because the weight of the speeches which have been made today has been a little too much the other way. While there are many things in favour of large slaughterhouses, we must not forget the point that has been mentioned today concerning the cruelty which results to animals from travelling long distances. To site slaughterhouses in the towns and cities means that live animals will have to be taken considerable distances. We must not forget that point. If the policy of hon. Members opposite is to have the slaughterhouses in producing areas, that is another matter, but I have not heard that suggestion made today. All I am doing is to try to put the matter into its right perspective.
I should like to deal with some of the points which have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), during an intervention in my right hon. Friend's speech, referred to the Regulations relating to safety and construction. The Regulations on safety are provided for in Clause 6. Subsection (1) relates to factory inspections, and subsection (2) relates to the retail butchers' slaughterhouses. Regulations on construction are provided under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. They are to be found in Section 13, and, in fact, although they were there originally, we could not have used them in relation to these draft Regulations because we want to deal with the matter by stages over areas. That is provided for in the Bill. Although the powers for bringing in the Regulations were in existence, they did not exist in the form in which we wanted them. That explains the wording to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I do not wish to pursue the matter further now. We can return to it in Standing Committee. However, it seems to me that there has been some delay on the part of the Department if they had the powers to introduce Regulations such as these without the question of staggering with regard to different districts. I am thinking of new building which has been conducted during the last year or so.

Mr. Godber: We wished to consider the matter as a whole. Having done that, we wanted to bring in the Regulations by districts. I do not think it would have been right for us to have laid down these standards at an earlier date. In any case, we have had the most exhaustive discussions with the various interests on these Regulations. It has taken a long time to get some measure of agreement on them, and while we are just as anxious as the hon. Member is to press on, we did not wish to go ahead in a manner which did not meet with general approval. That covers that point. Incidentally, the Regulations under Clause 6 (1) of the Bill are subject to affirmative Resolution, which I know will meet with the hon. Gentleman's approval. The Regulations under the previous Act to which I referred are subject to negative Resolution.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North talked a great deal about bureaucrats. Frankly, I was surprised. I began to think that he had lost his faith in planners and planning. When he refers to them as "bureaucrats", I know that he disapproves of them; when he refers to them as "planners", I know that they have his approval. He should not have scoffed at these particular gentlemen, who have, I think, produced a very valuable Report. Of course, we have been following out to a considerable extent that Report, although we have not accepted it completely; we have put the weight of our wisdom behind it in bringing it before the House in this way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think too harshly of those gentlemen in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the financial problems involved. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his opening speech, we are not proposing to provide large sums of finance. This Bill is the framework on which we have to build in the future. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do what the financial stringencies are at the moment. I know about his own special problem in Sunderland, and I hope very much that it will be possible to go ahead, though I am not in a position tonight to make any statement on any particular slaughterhouse. I know that he will be well aware of that, and I do not believe that he honestly expected me to make any statement about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough raised one or two points of considerable interest. I have already referred to the position of small butchers, but, in connection with Clause 6, my hon. Friend wondered also whether the small slaughterhouse which is not actually
within the close or curtilage or precincts of premises…
would come under the same arrangements as a butcher's shop, which is actually attached. As I understand it, it would not. I should like to go into that further later, but, as I understand the matter, it would come under the Factories Act restrictions, and, of course, the Regulations will be planned in such a way as to be almost comparable so that there will be no particular disadvantage.
I am told that in connection with Clause 6 I said that there would be an


affirmative Resolution for the Regulations regarding safety, health and welfare. I should have said that the affirmative Resolution applied to the Order under Clause 6 (1) relating to safety, health and welfare. Of course, the ones relating to construction and hygiene will be negative. I hope that it is clear now that that is what is intended.
Turning to the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), it was, if I may say so without in any way wishing to appear patronising, a most interesting and helpful speech from one who understands from practical experience what he is speaking about. He put forward some very important and constructive suggestions, and we should like to consider some of them further in Committee when we come to that stage. He was very concerned about the matter of meat inspection, and I gained the impression that he felt that the percentage of meat which is properly inspected is very low.

Mr. Royle: I would not say that. I do not want to exaggerate the case. I never said that there was a very large proportion, but there was some proportion.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that was the point I wished to correct. I felt that he was, perhaps, saying that it was too low, and there I agree with him; but it is, in fact, a very large percentage which is inspected, and, naturally, we seek always to extend it until we obtain 100 per cent. coverage.
On the point of the stunning pen, I gathered that he was saying that the stunning pen we were envisaging was similar to the one for the Jewish method. That is not, however, the case; it is a different type.

Mr. Royle: The principle of it is the same.

Mr. Godber: That is a question which, as I say, we shall go into further.
The hon. Member raised the question of slaughtermen, who, he felt should in the main be full-time slaughtermen.

Mr. Royle: indicated dissent.

Mr. Godber: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; it was one of his hon. Friends. The hon. Member believed that part-time slaughtermen would do the job well. I am glad to say I am in agreement with

him. I gather that in the main he was of the view that slaughterhouses should be large municipal slaughterhouses but that there should be provision for local butchers to be able to slaughter their own animals. That is an important proviso that must be included if we are to rely upon the large slaughterhouses.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that he hoped we should be having a Slaughter of Animals consolidation Measure in the near future. This Bill is paving the way towards that end and the Second Schedule refers in large degree to that.
In the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) we had some graphic descriptions which caused some of us to grow pale. We certainly found his speech most interesting, although some of us on this side were a trifle disappointed that he did not carry it so far as to give a demonstration on some of his hon. Friends. Perhaps we shall have that at some other time.

Dr. Stross: I am sorry that I had not the inclination, but on some other occasion perhaps I will cross the Floor to do it.

Mr. Godber: At any rate, we were much enlightened by what the hon. Member said, and I am sure that his points were valuable in making us, and, indeed, people outside, understand the extent to which cruelty is absent from these operations when properly carried out. That is something of very great value and I am grateful to him for having made the point.
We listened with great respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on a point on which, I know, he feels extremely deeply. I give him the assurance that this Bill in no way sets out to change the position under shechita in any way.

Mr. Janner: I am obliged.

Mr. Godber: I think it would be better to leave it at that.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) reminded us of his own particular problem in his area, which I know well and with which I sympathise. It is just one other of those cases which, I hope, will benefit in the long run from the measures which we are seeking to introduce. I assure the hon. Member that I have his case very


much in mind. He also mentioned that, in regard to the stunning pen, there should be some tolerance with regard to the smaller slaughterhouse and that point is allowed for in some degree in the draft Regulations which we have introduced.

Mr. Hayman: I made the point that where the premises are so small as not to have a stunning pen, bullocks ought not to be slaughtered.

Mr. Godber: That is exactly the point to which I was addressing myself. We have to some extent provided freedom to the local authorities to grant exemption for a period, at any rate, with regard to that. That is another point which can be discussed at a later stage.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) also contributed to the debate. I was rather interested to see the measure of the split between the "Co-op" and the Labour Party on this vital matter which he exposed between himself and his hon. Friend. I hope that it will not extend too far to cause serious embarrassment between them. The question of ownership of these particular slaughterhouses is one which I am quite content to leave to them. The important thing is that we should have more good slaughterhouses. I am not so concerned with the question of who owns them so long as there are more good ones.
The hon. Member did, however, say something concerning a by-product factory in his constituency which worried me. I should be grateful if he would let me have further details, so that we might have an opportunity of looking into the problem and consider whether there is any way in which it can be met.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) stressed the need for this Measure for the sake of the country's health, and said that that was the main reason for going ahead with these improvements. I agree that there is a big need for them, but we are addressing ourselves very much to that, and by this very Measure itself. It may not go as far as he would wish, but he must agree that it is on the right lines. As for animal health, which is closely related to public health, we have made very great progress in recent years. Although it may be, perhaps, beyond the scope of the Bill, I should like to say that

about what we are doing for our cattle; and point out, for instance, that the tuberculosis eradication scheme is making tremendous strides at the present time, and will react and has already reacted on the health of the people.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I agree, and in a way, because of the work which has been done at Enfield, it is all the more important that its value should not be lost because of conditions in slaughterhouses.

Mr. Godber: Yes. I think we are both seeking to achieve the same end, and I quite agree about the need to go as far and as fast as we can. We are starting on the road at the present time and I hope that we shall be able to proceed along it with reasonable speed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the availability of finance. There is no more I can say about that, but once we have the Bill on the Statute Book we shall be in a better position to seek to provide the means.
I have tried to answer the questions which have been asked by hon. Members. We shall seek and hope to have their support in Committee on the Bill to help us get this further useful Measure of social legislation on the Statute Book. To put this Bill in its right perspective we should remember that it is but one stage—it may be a small Measure, but it is one more stage—in the progress of our social legislation which has been enacted during the time of this Government.
I remind the House that within the last three or four years there have been much larger Measures than this, the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. All those Measures are designed further to improve the conditions of the workers, to improve hygiene, and to improve the quality of products supplied to the people.
This Bill is just one more stage in what the Conservative Government are doing; we are always in the van of progress. We are grateful for the support of the House for the continuation of this work.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BANK RATE INCREASE (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

9.47 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I should like with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to make a short statement.
Now that both Houses of Parliament have passed the necessary Resolutions for the setting up of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, I have appointed the Tribunal, and I am informing the House of its composition at the earliest opportunity.
The House will be glad to know that Lord Justice Parker has consented to act as Chairman, and that Mr. Edward Milner Holland, Q.C., and Mr. Geoffrey Veale, Q.C., have consented to serve as members of the Tribunal.
Any communications on the subject of the inquiry which is being undertaken should be addressed to the Secretary to the Tribunal at the Royal Courts of Justice.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I rise only to thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking this early opportunity of informing the House of the action that the Government have rightly taken.

Mr. Butler: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SLAUGHTERHOUSES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to slaughterhouses and knackers' yards and the slaughter of animals, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred under the said Act by any government department;
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.—[Mr. Amory.]

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am surprised to see that a Treasury Minister is not present. In the good old days of Socialist government, the Treasury Minister was punctilious in coming here to give any explanation required of a Money Resolution. Can the Minister assure us that this Resolution is sufficiently widely drawn to allow us the fullest discussion in Committee?

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I can assure the hon. Member that I am fully satisfied on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS

Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally.

Sir John Crowder, Mr. R. F. Hesketh, Mr. Holman, Mr. Montgomery Hyde, Sir Fergus Graham, Mr. Robert Jenkins, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. John Rodgers, Mr. Sparks, Dr. Barnett Stross, and Mrs. Eirene White.

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS

Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, such Committee to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best

suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and to report the same from time to time to the House; Reports of the Committee to set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; such Committee to have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Deer, Mr. Duthie, Mr. David Griffiths, Mr. Hector Hughes, Dr. King, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Major Legge-Bourke, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Commander Maitland, Mr. McGhee, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Pargiter, and Mr. Watkins.

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Bryan.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Ten o'clock.